Rules of Engagement

RavnShield

Member
Jul 18, 2002
142
0
0
I am confused about rules of engagement and declaration of war, maybe someone can clarify. Since saddam didn't directly instigate this conflict, how can we declare war and attack? I thought we are not able to attack unless we are attacked upon, ex: Pearl harbor, etc. Isn't this one of the reasons that we avoided all the cr@p in the cold war? Does the security of US supersede the rules of engagement? Someone enlighten me
 

Crimson

Banned
Oct 11, 1999
3,809
0
0
I disagree with your statement that Iraq did not directly cause this conflict. Does the invading of Kuwait sound like a passive action on their part? Yes, this is still related to that action of his 10+ years ago.. they have no fullfilled their end of the ceasefire agreements after the Gulf War..
 

TheBDB

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2002
3,176
0
0
We're not going to declare war on them. We are going to attacked based on UN Resolution 1441 that gives us the authority to attack if they don't comply with inspectors. Which they haven't done.
 

Orsorum

Lifer
Dec 26, 2001
27,631
5
81
Originally posted by: TheBDB
We're not going to declare war on them. We are going to attacked based on UN Resolution 1441 that gives us the authority to attack if they don't comply with inspectors. Which they haven't done.

No, the resolution does not give us the authority to attack. It delegates that authority back to the UN security council, at which time the UN council will decide on a course of action.
 

RavnShield

Member
Jul 18, 2002
142
0
0
Ok, if the UN decides, how can we justify our actions of going alone? I know we have backup form other nations but even if we didn't, we said we wouldn't stop
 

JellyBaby

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
9,159
1
81
No rules of engagement. All options are on the table including armor-piercing rubberbands.
how can we justify our actions of going alone?
It won't be done alone. Bush as bought out several nations and others have been tempted with the lucrative promise of future oil contracts. A few, of course, believe an Iraqi conquest is the "right thing to do".

A multinational consensus is preferred because it makes everyone feel better about doing something pretty bad.
 

RavnShield

Member
Jul 18, 2002
142
0
0
I dont get it, if we are making decisions independent of the UN council, why the he!! are we in it?
 

TheBDB

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2002
3,176
0
0
Originally posted by: RavnShield
I dont get it, if we are making decisions independent of the UN council, why the he!! are we in it?

Because the UN is full of idiots. But that doesn't mean we should just leave. The UN does a lot of good things and is sometimes useful.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
67
91
Originally posted by: RavnShield
Since saddam didn't directly instigate this conflict, how can we declare war and attack?
It sounds like you haven't been paying attention, or you're a new arrival here, on planet Earth.

Under U.N. Resolution 1441, Iraq was found to be in material breach of previous U.N. resolutions regarding disarmament. It warns that continuing these breaches of previous resolutions, or to violate the terms of the current one, will result in "serious consequenses." It does not require further action by the U.N., or the Security Council, for a member to take such action.

That said, before we start shooting, I think the Bush administration has to lay out convincing evidence why such action is required, now. It has nothing to do with whether we're right or wrong under the terms of the various U.N. resolutions. It has everything to do with having American citizens and the majority of the world with us if we do it. Otherwise, justified or not, we face continued strong anti-American sentiment and lack of any cooperation, politically as well as financially, in the aftermath.

As a final comment, I don't think Bush did himself any favors by authorizing any first use of nuclear weapons.
 

exp

Platinum Member
May 9, 2001
2,150
0
0
It is not the job of the UN to ensure the national security of any one country, including the U.S. (and UN supporters would be the first to acknowledge as much). Indeed, the goal of many UN members is exactly the opposite: to degrade American power and fill the resulting vacuum themselves.

Asking the UN to safeguard U.S. interests is like the quarterback of a football team asking the opposing defense to call plays for him. That is not sound foreign policy, it is madness.

 

ThePresence

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
27,727
16
81
Real good movie. SLJ owns. As far as Iraq is concerned, the above posts seem to have covered it. let's talk about the movie!
 

RavnShield

Member
Jul 18, 2002
142
0
0
Thx for the insightful post...and to others, thx for the input to clear things up for me.
Haven't seen the movie, but read the book, very good!
 

alrocky

Golden Member
Jan 22, 2001
1,771
0
0
Originally posted by: RavnShield
I dont get it, if we are making decisions independent of the UN council, why the he!! are we in it?
Being IN the UN does NOT preclude the US from making decisions and taking action INDEPENDENT of the UN.