War in Iraq illegal thread

[Czar]

AEB wanted a new thread about this topic so here it is. Going to start with something I wrote in another thread.

Now lets go over the resolutions

660 - http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0660.htm
"2. Demands that Iraq withdraw immediately and unconditionally all s its forces to the positions in which they were located on 1 August 1990;r"

678 - http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0678.htm
"1. Demands that Iraq comply fully with resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions, and decides, while maintaining all its decisions, to allow Iraq one final opportunity, as a pause of goodwil, to do so;

2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;"

687 - http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm
Goes on about the process of ending the war and how it should be done, Iraq's requirement to dismantle their wmd's and so on.

1441 - http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm
"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,"

Ok, now lets go through this again.
660 demands Iraq withdraw from Quvait.
678 demands Iraq fullfill 660, sets a deadline for Iraq to comply or it authorizes the use of force.
687 says how Iraq was supposed to after the war
1441 recalls 678 that authrizes force in light of Iraq not leaving Quvait as in 660
1441 recalls 687 as demanding Iraq meet those obligations with disarmament

So after going through this further I must say 1441 does not authorize force in any means or way since Iraq had fullfilled 678 at the time 1441 went through the SC.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

With the specific disarmament clause not fulfilled the agreement to stop fighting the Iraq war was violated, as you?ve clearly put out. 1441 doesn?t authorize force, but does recognize that Iraq didn?t fulfill it?s part of the agreement that put an end to force.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
With the specific disarmament clause not fulfilled the agreement to stop fighting the Iraq war was violated, as you?ve clearly put out. 1441 doesn?t authorize force, but does recognize that Iraq didn?t fulfill it?s part of the agreement that put an end to force.

no
678 states the requirements for authorizing force against Iraq, they had to leave kiwait as per 660.
687 states the disarmament phase and no where in that resolution does it authorize the use of force

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Czar
So after going through this further I must say 1441 does not authorize force in any means or way since Iraq had fullfilled 678 at the time 1441 went through the SC.

when did iraq comply with 687?

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Czar
So after going through this further I must say 1441 does not authorize force in any means or way since Iraq had fullfilled 678 at the time 1441 went through the SC.

when did iraq comply with 687?

that could have been decided when the UN inspectors were going to give their final report to the security council

but neither 687 or 1441 authorize war

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Czar
So after going through this further I must say 1441 does not authorize force in any means or way since Iraq had fullfilled 678 at the time 1441 went through the SC.

when did iraq comply with 687?

that could have been decided when the UN inspectors were going to give their final report to the security council

but neither 687 or 1441 authorize war

all necessary means

what does that refer to, then?

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Czar
So after going through this further I must say 1441 does not authorize force in any means or way since Iraq had fullfilled 678 at the time 1441 went through the SC.

when did iraq comply with 687?

that could have been decided when the UN inspectors were going to give their final report to the security council

but neither 687 or 1441 authorize war

all necessary means

what does that refer to, then?

that is 678 that states that and authorizes that if Iraq does not comply with 660 which states that Iraq must leave kuwait

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
With the specific disarmament clause not fulfilled the agreement to stop fighting the Iraq war was violated, as you?ve clearly put out. 1441 doesn?t authorize force, but does recognize that Iraq didn?t fulfill it?s part of the agreement that put an end to force.

no
678 states the requirements for authorizing force against Iraq, they had to leave kiwait as per 660.
687 states the disarmament phase and no where in that resolution does it authorize the use of force

The resolution to end the war was attached to the resolution to require Iraq to fulfill proper disarmament procedures, 1441 reminds us of this and says Iraq didn't fulfill their part of the 687 ceasefire agreement.

Iraq broke 687, the cease fire, by not complying with the agreements there in, you seem to want to hold us to an agreement that everyone agreed had been broken.

 

[lozina]

You forgot the most important clause of 1441:

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;

So if it is thought that Iraq was in violation of this resolution, it should be reported to the Council for further action... the way the USA interpreted it is: "the United States will determine if Iraq remains in violation of UN resolutions and will not have to report to the Council but instead can unilaterally determine what measure to take"

 

[LordMagnusKain]

that is 678 that states that and authorizes that if Iraq does not comply with 660 which states that Iraq must leave Kuwait

so war was started, and was ended with 687, with the provision that Iraq follow what was laid out in 687. Iraq, according to 1441, didn?t fulfill it?s part of that war-ending agreement.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

that is 678 that states that and authorizes that if Iraq does not comply with 660 which states that Iraq must leave Kuwait

so war was started, and was ended with 687, with the provision that Iraq follow what was laid out in 687. Iraq, according to 1441, didn?t fulfill it?s part of that war-ending agreement.

the authorization that comes with 678 enables member states to use force to ophold 660, it doesnt go further than that even if iraq did not fullfill their oblications to 687 it did not result in authorezation of further use of force.

Not fullfilling 687 was a part of 1441 which like lozina stated that the next step would be decided by the security council.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Czar
So after going through this further I must say 1441 does not authorize force in any means or way since Iraq had fullfilled 678 at the time 1441 went through the SC.

when did iraq comply with 687?

that could have been decided when the UN inspectors were going to give their final report to the security council

but neither 687 or 1441 authorize war

all necessary means

what does that refer to, then?

that is 678 that states that and authorizes that if Iraq does not comply with 660 which states that Iraq must leave kuwait

all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660

and what does that refer to?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Czar
So after going through this further I must say 1441 does not authorize force in any means or way since Iraq had fullfilled 678 at the time 1441 went through the SC.

Iraq did not fulfill 678. 1441 specifically states:

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq?s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);


678 was still a relevant resolution and is cited in 1441. 678 merely authorized the use of force but it also reaffirmed the previous resolutions since 660. In order to comply with 678 Iraq would have to fulfill all obligations detailed in the resolutions between 660 and 678 as well. They did not.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Czar
So after going through this further I must say 1441 does not authorize force in any means or way since Iraq had fullfilled 678 at the time 1441 went through the SC.

Iraq did not fulfill 678. 1441 specifically states:

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq?s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);


678 was still a relevant resolution and is cited in 1441. 678 merely authorized the use of force but it also reaffirmed the previous resolutions since 660. In order to comply with 678 Iraq would have to fulfill all obligations detailed in the resolutions between 660 and 678 as well. They did not.

they did, 678 said that they had to leave iraq before a set deadline. Resolution 687 states the disarmament phase which 678 does not cover.


and I'm going to the gym, will get back to this when I get back

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Czar
So after going through this further I must say 1441 does not authorize force in any means or way since Iraq had fullfilled 678 at the time 1441 went through the SC.

when did iraq comply with 687?

that could have been decided when the UN inspectors were going to give their final report to the security council

but neither 687 or 1441 authorize war

all necessary means

what does that refer to, then?

that is 678 that states that and authorizes that if Iraq does not comply with 660 which states that Iraq must leave kuwait

all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660

and what does that refer to?

resolutions are number based, resolution 1 is the first resolution the security council bassed, so when 678 was passed 687 didnt exist

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: ElFenix

all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660

and what does that refer to?

resolutions are number based, resolution 1 is the first resolution the security council bassed, so when 678 was passed 687 didnt exist

definition of subsequent, for your perusal

 

[RabidMongoose]

Seems like it's not very clear cut...you can have either view.

 

[piasabird]

What is the point? We are already at war!

 

[Mockery]

Not to side track this interesting debate....

but what was the last legal war waged?

Under this premise, isn't every conflict deemed illegal?

Kosovo = illegal

Somalia = illegal

I've even seen it debated that Afghanistan was illegal.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Seems like it's not very clear cut...you can have either view.

honestly, yes, that is the case.

but what was the last legal war waged?

before the UN was created. NKoria was fine internationaly, but by US standards still illegal.

it doesnt go further than that even if iraq did not fullfill their oblications to 687 it did not result in authorization of further use of force.

the fulfillment of 687 is the establishment that 678 has been upheld, that it was established that 687 had yet to be fulfilled shows that 687 had yet to be upheld. The establishment of an upholding of 678 Isn?t to be based on Iraqi troop involvement with Kawate, but rather as later defined by the security counsel in forming the 687 cease fire agreement.

 

[cmdavid]

(the other) war in iraq illegal thread..

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Czar
they did, 678 said that they had to leave iraq before a set deadline. Resolution 687 states the disarmament phase which 678 does not cover.


and I'm going to the gym, will get back to this when I get back

678 says:

Noting that, despite all efforts by the United Nations, Iraq refuses to comply with its obligation to implement resolution 660 (1990) and the above-mentioned subsequent relevant resolutions, in flagrant contempt of the Security Council,

Iraq did not fulfill the requirements. Iraq did not withdraw from Kuwait. They were engaged and forced to retreat.

686 states again:

Recalling and reaffirming its resolutions 660 (1990), 661 (1990), 662 (1990), 664 (1990), 665 (1990), 666 (1990), 667 (1990), 669 (1990), 670 (1990), 674 (1990), 677 (1990), and 678 (1990),

...

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter,

1. Affirms that all twelve resolutions noted above continue to have full force and effect;


At 686 all resolutions were still in full force and had not been completely comlied with.

1441 states:

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,

...

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq?s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

"Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991)." Those resolutions are named in the statement that begins "Recalling all its previous..." 1441 explicitly states that Iraq was still in breach, did not fulfill its obligations, and even names which ones specifically, of which 678 is one of those.

It's cut and dry.

 

[AEB]

OK sorry it took so long for me to get in this i was in class.

My justificaqtion for the war is the same one we used during WWII. It isnt right that a "leader" of a country can massacre any people he sees fir for any reason. The intell that pointed to WMD was just the "straw that broke the camels back".

Keep in mind during WWII, Japan attacked our troops not on US soil (arguably we shouldnt have been in hawaii). Secondly our major offensive was in europe when they were less of a threat to us than japan.

I see it as the united states saving lives, same as in WWII both were brutal dictators both were/did try to invade other countries that were of intrest to us.

However, you can take the stance that you dont care the Jews were being cleansed, i just dont agree with it.

 

[Genx87]

687 states the disarmament phase and no where in that resolution does it authorize the use of force

Did you bother reading the links to the official UN 687 documents?

They clearly say in sections 8-9 Iraq must allow access to sites they want to view. Throwing out the UN inspectors in 1998 violated a ceasefire. When you violate a ceasefire it means hostilities will erupt again.
678 can also be used if you want to get down and dirty because one of the provisions of 678 was to restore and maintain a level of security in the region.

With Saddam harboring know terrorists inside his country, not working with the UN on his WMD programs, and being defiant. That also put the regions security at risk.

You are grasping at straws here. Everybody knows he violated 687 and thus the ceasefire. When that happens that means war will breakout again.

This should have been taken care of in 1998 when he kicked the UN out. But it took 9-11 to really get the ball rolling on this. Of course the problem was a lax president and a corrupt UN.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: AEB
My justificaqtion for the war is the same one we used during WWII. It isnt right that a "leader" of a country can massacre any people he sees fir for any reason.

I thought the US went to war because Japan & Pearl Harbor and Germany shortly declared war against the US.

However, the president did want to go to war while the public didn't. I think it has more to do than what you are stating.