War supported by 1441?

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » March 24, 2003, 10:01 pm

This was posted on another board, and I am taking the liberty of posting it here. I have looked at 1441 and tried to figure out where this is wrong, but I haven't been able to find it. I am sure some of the people here will find errors in it though

Good read, anyway.

-------------------------------------------------------

(Hmm . . . this response came out so long that I'm expecting it to be skipped; but here goes, anyway.)

Quite a few people have been arguing that the United States and Britain are only following through on United Nations Resolution 1441, while most countries in that body are refusing to live up to the draft. Since that made me curious, I decided to check it out for myself.

Resolution 1441 is actually not that difficult of a read. Two key paragraphs spell out what constitutes a failure to live up to this resolution:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, if Iraq gives false statements or refuses to follow through on the disarmament specifics, they violate Paragraph 4. If they impede the UNMOVIC team, they violate Paragraph 11.

And how did the U.N. agree to handle such a violation:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, all that Resolution 1441 states for specific consequences is that the U.N. will reconvene and consider how to proceed. (Paragraph 13 also tacks on a vague reminder that Iraq "will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations.")

Given that text, I'm not sure how you can argue that the U.S. and British governments are simply rushing in to fulfill Resolution 1441 because the United Nations is failing to do so. The Resolution does not spell out that war is the next step and it in fact decides that the U.N. members will reconvene to agree on how to handle any violations. It seems to me that by bypassing that process, it is the attacking nations who are defying Resolution 1441.

Now, you are certainly free to argue that you believe that the United Nations should be ignored. Such a stance might weaken any future claims that you might wish to make about democracy being sacred; but as long as you're prepared to lose the ability to argue credibly from that point of view, I won't hold you back. However, I don't see how you can hold on to the argument that the United Nations lacked the will to follow through on its own resolutions, so individual nations had to pick up the slack.

You can also critique Resolution 1441 itself for being too weakly worded, although from what I have read, its vagueness was a deliberate response to a disagreement between France and the United States. Rather than resolve their differences and create a resolution with specific goals, specific timetables, and specific consequences, the two countries merely delayed their debate by accepting only a resolution with such soft wording.

(Disclaimer: I am no expert on this piece of history and am merely paraphrasing a piece that I read in Slate Magazine and considered reasonable. If anyone has a contradictory account of the drafting of this resolution, I would love to hear it.)

To me (definite conjecture here), it seems that the United States expected that Resolution 1441 would be a formality and that Iraq would show enough defiance to clearly justify a military attack. This expectation failed to come to pass. Yes, it is quite possible that Iraq showed enough defiance to convince you that they should be attacked; but I am referring to convincing the UNMOVIC leadership and the U.N. Security Council. After this failure, the U.S. bypassed the U.N. and stepped up pressure with the "48-hour" demand, culminating in a nearly inevitable war.

In summary, I can understand (if not necessarily agree with) an argument stating that the U.S. and Britain were right to defy the U.N.; but I have to reject any claim that they are the nations truly following through on Resolution 1441.

noel · Post by **noel** » March 24, 2003, 10:10 pm

Good information. Thanks.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » March 24, 2003, 10:23 pm

The US had to go when it did. Iraq was supplying reports on it's un-accounted for bio\chemical weapons (I haven't yet seen any information regarding the reports on Anthrax, VX and precursors they submitted before the US invaded). There was a real danger that Iraq would cooperate too much.

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » March 25, 2003, 2:04 am

Given that text, I'm not sure how you can argue that the U.S. and British governments are simply rushing in to fulfill Resolution 1441 because the United Nations is failing to do so. The Resolution does not spell out that war is the next step and it in fact decides that the U.N. members will reconvene to agree on how to handle any violations. It seems to me that by bypassing that process, it is the attacking nations who are defying Resolution 1441.

First of all the resolution was passed with regards to Iraq and their alleged weapons stockplies. The USA and UK cannot, be in violation of the resolution, as they were not the subjects of it, to begin with.

The wording of the excerpts also implies that there will be some consequence to Iraq for being found in violation of the resolution. The French Gov't unequivocally stated they would not allow any further resolutions which endorsed the use of force (a stance supported by the German gov't and later others). Sanctions had been tried in the past, and failed against the Iraqi government, so what else was left to enforce the resolutions of the UN security council? A diplomatic finger shaking?

While people are quick to condemn the Bush and Blair gov'ts for forcing this issue, the gov't of France was as much, if not more so to blame, as they took away the possibility that the USA, UK and their coalition could recieve any type of acceptable resolution within the UN's framework. France guaranteed the UN would enforce no consequences to Iraq for violation of 1441. By doing this, France also removed any UN control of the mandate for military action: there is no UN sanctioned goal, only whatever the coalition leadership decides.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » March 25, 2003, 3:31 am

Very nice job of leaving out the meat of the document, especially the part that promises immediate action of the most serious nature should Iraq be found in breach of the resolution.

It's too damn late to dig up the full text, I will edit tomorrow and post a link so you can read the ENTIRE document rather than quote the bits and piece that suit your view.

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » March 25, 2003, 3:48 am

And here I was thinking there was a link between information (for a phone number) and the war on terror

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » March 25, 2003, 8:09 am

Well said Wulfran.
Chirac effectively pulled the teeth out of the UN's resolution. After his statement the resolution should simply have read.

"Stop or we will tell you to Stop again".

All this accomplished was to call into question the UN's ability to deal with any issues and the credibility of this institution. Again

Cheers

Sabek · Post by **Sabek** » March 25, 2003, 11:28 am

As Fallanthas said nice job leaving out the parts that hurt your position.
If you actually read 1441 it says right at the top:

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized member states to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of August 2 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area

Use of force was not outlined in 1441 because it had already been outlined in a previous resolution.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » March 25, 2003, 11:39 am

Sabek wrote:As Fallanthas said nice job leaving out the parts that hurt your position.
If you actually read 1441 it says right at the top:
Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized member states to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of August 2 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area
Use of force was not outlined in 1441 because it had already been outlined in a previous resolution.

OMG did that say what I think it said MEMBER STATES

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » March 25, 2003, 11:58 am

As I have said several times before, the Bush administration can thank themself for not having world support. Their immediate use of insults etc when they met the slightest opposition pushed people who would have supported USA into being against.

miir · Post by **miir** » March 25, 2003, 11:58 am

Your quothing skills are improving, grasshopper.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » March 25, 2003, 12:01 pm

miir wrote:Your quothing skills are improving, grasshopper.

Thank you it is a honor to bee your Padawan Learner.

Sabek · Post by **Sabek** » March 25, 2003, 12:06 pm

Kelshara wrote:As I have said several times before, the Bush administration can thank themself for not having world support. Their immediate use of insults etc when they met the slightest opposition pushed people who would have supported USA into being against.

What in the world does this statement have to do with the topic at hand?
You asked if anyone could see where war was ok per resolution 1441 and I provided it. Support from the other countries was not the issue at hand.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » March 25, 2003, 12:13 pm

It was in response to what someone else said. And I still disagree that you provided proof *shrug*.

As I also said (if you bothered to read my initial post at all? Wouldn't be surprised if you didn't and started with Fox News crap) I didn't write it.

Edit: Also, something similar was posted as an editorial in one of England's largest newspapers before the war. So it obviously can't be that wrong.

Sabek · Post by **Sabek** » March 25, 2003, 12:43 pm

UN Resolution 660 wrote: Text of UN Resolution 660
Adopted by the Security Council at its 2932nd meeting, on 6 August 1990
Resolution condemns Iraq's invasion of Kuwait of 2 August 1990..
The Security Council, Alarmed by the invasion of Kuwait on 2 August 1990 by the military forces of Iraq,

Determining that there exists a breach of international peace and security as regards the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, Acting under Articles 39 and 40 of the Charter of the United Nations,

1. Condemns the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait;

2. Demands that Iraq withdraw immediately and unconditionally all its forces to the positions in which they were located on 1 August 1990;

3. Calls upon Iraq and Kuwait to begin immediately intensive negotiations for the resolution of their differences and supports all efforts in this regard, and especially those of the League of Arab States;

4. Decides to meet again as necessary to consider further steps with to ensure compliance with the present resolution.

UN Resolution 678 wrote: Dalebroux.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UN RESOLUTION 678 (1990)
Gives Iraq another chance to comply with UN Security Resolution 660.

UN Resolutions Page

Adopted by the Security Council at its 2963rd meeting on 29 November 1990

The Security Council,

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 of 29 October 1990 and 677 (1990) of 28 November 1990.

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,

Mindful of its duties and responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance and preservation of international peace and security,

Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter,

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 foregoing 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;

3. Requests all States to provide appropriate support for the actions undertaken in pursuance of paragraph 2 of the present resolution;

4. Requests the States concerned to keep the Security Council regularly informed on the progress of actions undertaken pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 3 of the present resolution;

5. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

What is difficult to understand about ALL NECESSARY MEANS?
It doesn't say "all necessary means except war".

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » March 25, 2003, 12:58 pm

As I have said several times before, the Bush administration can thank themself for not having world support. Their immediate use of insults etc when they met the slightest opposition pushed people who would have supported USA into being against.

I agree that Bush was ham-fisted in his initial handling of the diplomatic efforts, but are you really so naive as to believe France, Germany and others would have supported an action that was not in their best interests, economically? Chirac's stance has the added bonus fo scoring him some cheap political points for standing up to the Big, Bad American Bully and France's historical rival/nemisis in the UK.

As far as whether 1441 had been violated, Dr Blix himself was seen/recorded/reported as saying there had been violations found (no, they weren't the secret nuclear weapon or chemical facility but they were still violations). The US was blunt in their demands but not totally unjustified.

Here is a link to the COMPLETE text of UN 1441:
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/scre ... s1441e.pdf

The resolution itself is about 5 pages long.

Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

This is from the first page and is the contentious and defining point of the document. Iraq is not living up to the terms of the cease-fire it agreed to, to end the first Gulf War.

This excerpt is from earlier in the first page, reminding that the use of force had been sanctioned in 1991.

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,

So we have an original authorization to use force on Iraq, after the invasion of Kuwait in 1991. We have a subsequent ceasefire agreement, and UN recognition that Iraq is now violating said ceasefire. Why are the US and UK to blame for responding?

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » March 25, 2003, 1:07 pm

Everyone knows what the words on the paper say.
It's the interpretation thereof that causes the problem.
It's vague. There is room for maneuver. There's the rub.
However, the war is now on so WTF does it matter?

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » March 25, 2003, 1:17 pm

Atokal wrote:Well said Wulfran.
Chirac effectively pulled the teeth out of the UN's resolution. After his statement the resolution should simply have read.

"Stop or we will tell you to Stop again".

Cheers

It was probably more like, "Go away , or i shall taunt you a second time-eh!"

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » March 25, 2003, 1:19 pm

Everyone knows what the words on the paper say.
It's the interpretation thereof that causes the problem.
It's vague. There is room for maneuver. There's the rub.
However, the war is now on so WTF does it matter?

It matters because there are people who want to lay the blame for the situation at the feet of Bush and to a lesser extent Blair and to villify them. I submit (again) that Chirac bears as much blame for killing the diplomatic process.

This war may prove to be a death knell for the UN as a functioning body in that it sets a precedent for international "policing" outside them. In a way that scares me a bit, as a non-American, because if the UN is ineffectual where do countries turn in future disputes: do we appeal to Washington for justice? I think this COULD (not necessarily will) have ramifications for the sovereignty of countries all over the globe.

Sabek · Post by **Sabek** » March 25, 2003, 1:22 pm

I totally agree Tanc.
At this point the genie is out of the bottle.
I do not like seeing US and British soldiers in harms way anymore than anyone else.
However it's post like this one from Kelshara that try to portray the US as the big bad ogre and that they are stepping on some little inocent kitten that irritate me.

There were two very easy endings to this conflict, both were in Sadam's lap and he thumbed his nose at them.
He could have 1)disarmed like he agreed to do in 1990 or 2) gone into exile.

He chose to stay and fight.

Force should always be the last resort, but there were no further viable options in this case. The UN could keep saying "Be nice" to Sadam as they have for the last 12 years and get no results. They could impose more sanctions which just helps Sadam more and hurt the Iraqi people more.

There was no further diplomatic way to handle this.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » March 25, 2003, 1:35 pm

i dont think that Iraq was ever going to comply with the UN resolutions.

so possible alternatives:

1. UN decides disarming saddam not a priority

would eventually lead to another gulf war for sure, because somebody would get attacked

2. US/UK waited to deploy troops until a more substantative diplomatic coalition could have been constructed.

France, Germany and Russia never were going to be on board because the Iraqi military is a client of their industries. China is never going to be that happy because they have no oil reserves are vulnerable to price hikes.

3. US waits to deploy until the economy is stabilized somewhat

may be irrelevant, but i would have preferred this route. But of course i don't think in terms of election cycles, and waiting until 2004 to deploy probably didnt go over to well (for good reason).

Interesting development in the first week now. It is appearing more and more to me that the 'psychological' aspect of our initial attack has been unsuccessful. the Iraqi military has spread its loyalists to influence the rank and file, and we are not seeing wholesale surrender of troops, or civilians helping us in critical scenarios.

We were hoping that the Shi'ites in Basra would really secure the fall of that town. Apparently, they still havent gotten over the first time we said we'd help them topple Saddam and bailed out on them, leaving them to get their ass handed to them.

I am curious how the assault will go today on the Republican Guard (assuming the weather passes) outside of Baghdad.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » March 25, 2003, 1:40 pm

However it's post like this one from Kelshara that try to portray the US as the big bad ogre and that they are stepping on some little inocent kitten that irritate me.

Yeah actually debating something is a direct attack on USA! Get a clue.

There was no further diplomatic way to handle this.

As long as the weapon inspectors wanted more time, I tend to disagree. Of course that was ignored completely.

I agree that Bush was ham-fisted in his initial handling of the diplomatic efforts, but are you really so naive as to believe France, Germany and others would have supported an action that was not in their best interests, economically?

It would definitely have brought more countries to the coalition. I know my own, Norway, decided against going after the American embassador threatened the government. Would France, China and Russia? Honestly, I don't know. It would all be speculating now anyway. However, with some hard work and some agreements on what would happen AFTER the war I believe there would be a chance, yes.

Oh and btw France is allowing coalition airplanes to use French airspace on their way to Iraq, so they are in fact helping if just a little. Saves them about 6 hours flight time each way I believe.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » March 25, 2003, 1:43 pm

yeah because France wants a piece of the post-war pie. Chirac started softening his rhetoric about 5 minutes after the first bomb dropped.

Kelshara, you raise the real blunder that the US administration made. They literally tried to bully their allies into agreeing with them on this. Mexico wouldnt go along chiefly because of the way that they were treated, i think Pres Fox used the word "humiliating" to describe the manner in which his government was treated. I think the invasion course was probably the way to go, but i think the way that we approached the situation was done very poorly and will not serve our interests in the short or long term.

hopefully Iraq can be coalesced well and we don't get drawn into a conflict with the citizenry. That will be a disaster, and that is what Saddam is trying to do i think, get the citizens to feel like we are fighting them.

ther should have been boats full of food ready to dock at Umm Qasr, so we could be handing out food and water already. You want to get those guys on your side, you "show them the money"

Sabek · Post by **Sabek** » March 25, 2003, 1:48 pm

Kelshara wrote:
However it's post like this one from Kelshara that try to portray the US as the big bad ogre and that they are stepping on some little inocent kitten that irritate me.
Yeah actually debating something is a direct attack on USA! Get a clue.

There was no further diplomatic way to handle this.
As long as the weapon inspectors wanted more time, I tend to disagree. Of course that was ignored completely.

No you didn't debate anything. You didn't even give your own view. You posted someone elses view and then didn't have the sack to post your own view.

So you are saying this war would be ok and everything would be right in the world if Hans had found a canister of nerve gas?

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » March 25, 2003, 1:55 pm

It matters because there are people who want to lay the blame for the situation at the feet of Bush and to a lesser extent Blair and to villify them. I submit (again) that Chirac bears as much blame for killing the diplomatic process

Oh WHO gives a fuck? Chirac will be the patsy cos it's easy to mock the French but at the end of the day it's not his troops rolling into a foreign country. History will be the judge and all this semantic heair splitting over 1441 is just a waste of life.
1441 only occurred because the US expected to get quick and solid support for it's war on Iraq either because weapons would be found or the rest of the world would agre that "time has run out". Neither of these happened to GW followed his prearranged timetable anyway.
I GUARANTEE you that if Bush had known in advance what would have happened with 1441 it would have received a US veto faster than you can type the word.

If Saddam was such a threat then bringing the UN around to your pov was only a matter of time and approach.
Inspections could have been given longer and the sanctions program could have been beefed up and administered directly by the UN to starve Saddam's regime of it's money that it was stealing from it's people.
The no-fly zones could have been extended yet again to put further pressure on Saddam.
All of these and more are possibilities that weren't given any chance in the unseemly haste to start a war - THAT's what most of us object to. We do not oppose war with Saddam, we just feel that other avenues were not properly explored and that smacks of ulterior motives. And don't come back with the "12 years" bullshit cos for 8 of those the UN was dealing with Saddam. Nobody blinked in 98 when the inspectors were kicked out and nobody was wringing any hands about the plight of Iraqis (except us liberals of course) back then.
If there is any fault here it is with the UN for allowing a culture to develop that broadly refuses to become embroiled in "internal state affairs". This stance has been implicitly and explicitly supported since the UNs inception, largely by the security council members. However, if the UN were to change its charter and sanction countries with human rights records it would lose the role that it has served so well. A body that comments on internal national politics would need to be separate from one dealing with international law and treaties such as the UN

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » March 25, 2003, 1:56 pm

I have said all along that to me, and to a lot of others, some kind of proof would have made for a completely different situation. I think I have said that in qutie a few different threads now.

And if you read the beginning of the post, I said that I had read through it and looked for myself to find any errors which I didn't. And that I considered it an interesting read. How is that any different than posting links to articles, to the stupid person who was linked in the "Human Shield" thread etc?

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » March 25, 2003, 1:56 pm

So you are saying this war would be ok and everything would be right in the world if Hans had found a canister of nerve gas?

Yes.
Pretty fuckin simple, eh?

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » March 25, 2003, 2:12 pm

Posted this on another thread, but it seems apt to put it here as well.

Taken from a recent Newsweek article on the reasons behind the war on Iraq.

The Clinton administration finally gave in and allowed Saddam to export more oil to alleviate his people’s suffering. The strongman promptly pocketed , which he used to build more palaces—and fund his secret WMD program. “We could see this happening,” said one Clinton administration official, “but there wasn’t a whole lot we could do about it.”

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » March 25, 2003, 2:47 pm

vn_Tanc wrote: Yes.
Pretty fuckin simple, eh?

Well, not really, especially w/out any type of cooperation. You really don't think he has anything over there?

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » March 25, 2003, 2:55 pm

Chidoro wrote:
vn_Tanc wrote: Yes.
Pretty fuckin simple, eh?
Well, not really, especially w/out any type of cooperation. You really don't think he has anything over there?

He does because he wears these

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 25, 2003, 3:07 pm

Fallanthas wrote:Posted this on another thread, but it seems apt to put it here as well.

Taken from a recent Newsweek article on the reasons behind the war on Iraq.

The Clinton administration finally gave in and allowed Saddam to export more oil to alleviate his people’s suffering. The strongman promptly pocketed , which he used to build more palaces—and fund his secret WMD program. “We could see this happening,” said one Clinton administration official, “but there wasn’t a whole lot we could do about it.”

I just want to spotlight this in case anyone missed it you know by accident or something. I think it's really important and relevent information.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » March 25, 2003, 3:11 pm

kyoukan type-R wrote:
Fallanthas wrote:
The Clinton administration finally gave in and allowed Saddam to export more oil to alleviate his people’s suffering. The strongman promptly pocketed , which he used to build more palaces—and fund his secret WMD program. “We could see this happening,” said one Clinton administration official, “but there wasn’t a whole lot we could do about it.”
I just want to spotlight this in case anyone missed it you know by accident or something. I think it's really important and relevent information.

i added some suggestions to help you with that.

edit: not as funny when it takes me 3 edits

(((

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » March 25, 2003, 3:24 pm

Well, not really, especially w/out any type of cooperation. You really don't think he has anything over there?

The inspectors were getting more co-operation. See Blix's comments as he left Iraq. Either way the inspectors said one year was a reasonable timeframe for a thorough investigation and nobody was prepared to give them that long.

I don't think he has anything other than what was listed as missing when the inspectors pulled out in 1998. I also believe that the bulk of that stuff would have degraded to uselessness because Saddam lacked the facilities to maintain them properly. So yeah, I concede he may have some WMDs but nothing to deliver them should he choose to use them and certainly no desire to supply them to terrorists. As such I don't rank him any more of a threat than the rest of the world's armies that have WMD of a similar nature to Iraq's - ya know, the dozen or so other countries we aren't bothering to invade for various reasons.

So, given that I don't feel Saddam is a threat to the world in terms of disseminating his weapons (this point is important - bear it in mind if you reply to this post), that leaves me pondering what to do about discovering what he does have and removing them. This process was given nowhere enough time. Now I sincerely hope he has no workable WMDs and if he does he isn't stupid enough to use them because I for one would rather have had inspectors find them than have them launched at our troops.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » March 26, 2003, 7:34 pm

Something that has been nagging me a bit.. can you really use resolutions that were aimed at getting Iraq out of Kuwait (678) to justify war now?

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle ... temID=2978

Sabek · Post by **Sabek** » March 26, 2003, 7:56 pm

Another pointless link.

Evidently having it told to you 3-4 times isn't enough. In 1441 it specifically calls 660 and 678.

Quote:
Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized member states to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of August 2 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area

There is the quote from my earlier message that is straight from 1441.
It wasn't said in 1441 because it was already said in 678.

Grats you on beating a dead horse and missing the point entirely.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » March 26, 2003, 7:59 pm

Sorry need to be spoonfed this (grats you on being an arrogant fucktard anyway).

I'm not American, English is not my primary language. But by saying "Recalling" I do not read that as having a relevance today. It points towards force being allowed used to settle the region (ie Iraq out of Kuwait) in 1990/91.

But then again go ahead and call me stupid, wont really hurt me much coming from you

Sabek · Post by **Sabek** » March 26, 2003, 9:46 pm

I apologize for overlooking the language barrier.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » March 27, 2003, 3:56 am

If the earlier resolutions was not intended to be kept in effect, there would be no reason to 'recall' it, as 1441 specifically does.

Beyond that, 1441 threatens dire consequences. There are no diplomatic consequences between full sanctions and millitary force that I am aware of. Since sanctions had been in effect for a decade at the time 1441 was drafted, is it not reasonable to assume millitary force was the intended interpretation?

Gurugurumaki · Post by **Gurugurumaki** » March 27, 2003, 10:58 am

Sabek wrote:I apologize for overlooking the language barrier.

There are no apologies allowed on this board you cockknocker, back to work!