GW is sure on a roll now. A Republican sweep in the election and now a 15-0 vote in the Security Council approving the tough new Resolution on Iraq. 7 days for Saddam to accept the Resolution. 8 days from war???
The blame lies purely on the shoulders of the fourteen other members who voted for the resolutions.
Its almost a given that Iraq will accept the resolution. From this point to war is still a long way.
I guess US will wait until Ramadan (oops Ramzan) is over. Butcher of Baghdad should start preparing for his final journey. Inshallah!
Why are you guys surprised or thinking this is some great victory? It isnt. Rather it was expected. Now you all should expect some terrorist attacks.
Amazing how calmly we can all talk about the acceptance of an illegal Resolution against a sovereign country, a Resolution whose conditions have been deliberately framed to be so intrusive that, upon the flimsiest excuse, Iraq will be found in breach of its legal obligations - thus providing the justification for raining down missiles and bombs upon a country of 22 million civilians. Wow.
i look forward to the day when UN Resolutions are made this binding upon EVERY country in the world. 
Nadia:
And just how do you figure that a duly enacted Resolution of the UN is an "illegal Resolution?" Are all UN Resolutions "illegal" or just the ones you don't like? Should only the Resolutions you deem legal be enforced?
all UN resolutions need to be enforced. each and everyone, whether a few people here or there like it or not.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
Should only the Resolutions you deem legal be enforced?
[/QUOTE]
You know that's not what i mean, MyVoice.
i can go into the technicalities of this draft Resolution and why i find it "illegal", a discussion i am certain everyone finds as interesting as i do. It will probably put you all to sleep. Here's a short summary though: In its first operative paragraph, this draft Resolution recalls Security Council Resolution 688 (adopted in 1991). By incorporating mention of 688 into a new Resolution that develops the new framework for Iraqi compliance, the US is free to utilize the claim that Iraq is not in compliance with the new Resolution, even if there is full progress on the disarmament agenda.
Note that, since Congress passed the "October 2002 Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq", the US admin. is now allowed - with the blessings of Congress - to use military force to "achieve the goals of [Resolution] 688". Mentioning 688 in the draft Resolution appears to be designed to broaden the causus belli in line with the US Congressional stance. This obstructs the path towards a peaceful solution to this issue. For all these reasons (and many more) *and not due to my own personal rantings * i am opposed to this latest Resolution.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
Nadia:
And just how do you figure that a duly enacted Resolution of the UN is an "illegal Resolution?" Are all UN Resolutions "illegal" or just the ones you don't like? Should only the Resolutions you deem legal be enforced?
[/QUOTE]
I believe she was referring to the resolutions achieved via blackmail and behind-the-door threats and/or bribes. But then again, thats how the UN, pardon US, works.
Sounds like sour grapes...akif ji. These kind of statements give myvoices view even more credibility.
As far as the reference to the 1991 resolution in the current one...this is a common practice in drafting resolutions at the UN. Look at all the resolutions against Israel they all refer to each other.
>>I believe she was referring to the resolutions achieved via blackmail and behind-the-door threats and/or bribes. But then again, thats how the UN, pardon US, works.<<
Many thanks, Akif.
Bottom line: Iraq is a sovereign country. If we are going to threaten every country that possesses WMD, then by all means let's go for it and invade Israel and all other Middle Eastern countries.
What always seems to get lost is that this "sovereign country" lost a war and agreed to dismantle any and all plans for WMD. This isn't just any ol' country that posesses WMD.
As Bush said today:
"Iraq’s obligation to disarm is not new, or even recent. To end the Persian Gulf War and ensure its own survival, Iraq’s regime agreed to disarm in April of 1991. For over a decade, the Iraqi regime has treated its own pledge with contempt.
As today’s resolution states, Iraq is already in material breach of past U.N. demands. Iraq has aggressively pursued weapons of mass destruction, even while inspectors were inside the country. Iraq has undermined the effectiveness of weapons inspectors with ploys, delays and threats, making their work impossible and leading to four years of no inspections at all.
The world has learned from this experience an essential lesson: Inspections will not result in a disarmed Iraq unless the Iraqi regime fully cooperates."
Nadia:
Your opposition to the Resolution is not unexpected but your allegation that it is "illegal" was both unexpected and, if you'll pardon the criticism, ill-conceived and/or a very poor choice of words. Obviously, 15 Members of the UN Security Council that know a heck of a lot more about the UN Charter and international law than you or I disagree with you. Just because you oppose something doesn't make it illegal.
Since the UN is a voluntary membership and since each of the Members has agreed to abide by and operate in accordance with the UN Charter, any UN Resolution that is adopted in conformity with the applicable rules and regulations is "legal". When you've also got a unanimous Security Council adopting a Resolution, any claims that it is "illegal" should be viewed with the highest degree of scepticism and scorn.
I also think that when you get countries with such disparate inrterests like France, Great Britain, Russia, the US, China and Syria among others all agreeing unanimously that something is the right thing to do, those people who disagree might consider re-evaluating there own positions a little bit and/or at least acknowledging that powerful arguments exist on the other side to justify the action.
Now, I certainly can acknowledge that is possible (not likely) that you are the lone voice of wisdom and you are right. For you to claim you're right because what the Security Council did is illegal is just plain silly.
MyVoice, i can see where you are coming from. Why do i feel it is "illegal"? Maybe it is a poor choice of words. My reasons for it are as follows, the following words by the way are nothing new - pretty well known on this Forum by now: Iraq invades a country twelve years ago. The US develops a coalition to drive out Iraqi forces from Kuwait and drives through Resolutions, specifically one of which directly imposes sanctions - including civilian sanctions - against Iraq. Now here come the oft-repeated hypocrisies: the US invaded Panama, no Resolutions against it, no sanctions. Indonesia invaded East Timor and continued to maintain a bloody occupation of it for quite a few years; no Resolutions, no sanctions. Israel occupies Palestinian territories for over three decades, and what do they get for their pains? $3bn in annual aid from the US. Moving on, during the time that has elapsed since the imposition of sanctions and today, not just in my opinion but in the opinions of several former UN officials (including those who were responsible for the "oil-for-food" programme), Iraq has already complied with its legal obligations vis-a-vis the UN. You cannot keep slapping down resolution upon resolution against a country that has already complied. i know we differ upon this point and we will probably always do so.
For my own self, i cannot help but wonder what Iraq needs to do to satisfy the US in order to have the civilian aspects of the sanctions lifted. If you are going to insist upon universal adherence to international laws, then why not implement Paragraph 14 of Resolution 687 - that calls on Middle Eastern (including Israel's) disarmament. Is that satisfactory to yourself or to the US admin., and if it is not, then why should any Resolution against Iraq be viewed from a serious perspective?
i don’t know whether to laugh or weep at these comments by Bush. Probably both. Who was manipulating UNSCOM to act as spies on behalf of the US government?
The 'sovereign' country we are bleeding for invaded another sovereign country not so long ago..
Nadia:
Nothing you say in your most recent post establishes that the Resolution is illegal. And, I point out again that regardless of your own views about Iraqi compliance, 15 Members of the UN Security Council representing totally disparate interests and viewing the situation from totally different angles UNANIMOUSLY disagree with you and believe Iraq is in and has been in material breach of UN Resolutions on disarmament and inspection.
You don't have to agree with them. You should respect their decision and maybe try to figure out why these extremely smart, bright, intellectual representatives of these countries can't see what you see. Or maybe it's that you choose not to see what they do.
Do you think we will find out the sources of this chemical or bio weapon technology to Iraq through this? because whoever helped them develop this technology has stores of the stuff too.
I would think its Russia due to teh close ties between teh countries plus Russias own use of nerve gas a few days back to enbd teh hostage crises. aside from that I am not sure which other countries would have transferred such knowledge or technology to Iraq.
It would be interesting to find out though.
you gotta be kiddin. kofi annan has failed me!