Just reading whats been going on over the past few hours;
**Monday, 17 March - 0001: In a pre-recorded interview on CNN, French President Jacques Chirac maintains threat to veto a second resolution, and says Paris is willing to compromise on how long UN arms inspections in Iraq should last.
0130: US orders non-essential diplomats to leave Israel, Syria, Kuwait.
0430: Australian Prime Minister John Howard says participation of his country in any conflict with Iraq is getting “more likely”.
0600: Reports emerge that UN observers stationed along Kuwait’s border with Iraq have ceased all operations.
0630: UK advises all its citizens, except diplomatic staff, to leave Kuwait
0720: French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin reiterates that a second UN resolution on Iraq is “unacceptable.”
0815: Russia’s deputy foreign minister Yuri Fedotov is quoted as saying that a second UN resolution has “no chance”.
0845: China’s Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing says the Iraq issue should be solved through dialogue within the UN.
1009: UN’s nuclear agency chief Mohamed ElBaradhei says Washington has advised weapons inspectors to leave Iraq.
1009 : Russia advises its nationals to leave Iraq.
1115: Russian President Vladimir Putin says war against Iraq would be a “mistake”. **
Could the imminent onset of war in Iraq lead to wider repercussions, Iraq/Russia/France/China? vs US/UK/Australia/Spain…things are shaping up nicely for dubya dubya 3.
*Could the imminent onset of war in Iraq lead to wider repercussions, Iraq/Russia/France/China? vs US/UK/Australia/Spain...things are shaping up nicely for dubya dubya 3. *
[/QUOTE]
With the words the Anglo-American regimes have been using against the French I am sure that war or no war there will be long term repurcussions. Whatever the 'success' any war France's respect and staus in the world has been greatly enhanced at the cost of the US-UK, and the US has learnt a very painful diplomatic lesson that it's hegemony will not go unchallenged. In fact many states across the world i.e. in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East and Asia have followed the lead of France-Germany-Russia and refused to bow to the will of American regime, which may well hasten the end of global American dominance?
Well one thing is for certain post-war political geography will be changed forever, an opposing economic and military force needs to be in place to ensure just global policy from the US.
France/Russia/China and Germany along with other major states need to capitalise on their stance war or no war and form an alliance. This alliance of the Nations Opposing American Hegemony (NOAH) will ensure a boat has been built for the next flood of war-mongering.
Iraq has termed the Bush-Blair-Aznar meeting a “Summit of Outlaws”, which I think is quite apt, especially as these outlaws are now calling for the UN to get out of Iraq.
The outlaw states have withdrawn their proposed resolution at the UN after failing to win any support from the other 11/12 states on the UNSC. With the US-UK war mongerers poised to declare war soon Russia has pre-emptively condemnded any military action against Iraq.
And 1441 gives justification for invading Iraq? i am astonished. i must have missed the part of the Resolution where it explicitly condones justification for regime change as well as using "all necessary means" - the necessary UN euphemism that authorizes use of force. Check 1441 - it doesn't have either of these two stipulations.
It is the job of the UN Security Council and UN inspectors to state whether Iraq has been in material breach on 1441, not any individual person or state. Now I asked you to show us the UNSC resolution that states that? Let's see it...
War and law: Attorney General statement
Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney-General, today said that military action against Iraq was legal without a second resolution. This is his written parliamentary answer in full
"Authority to use force against Iraq exists from the combined effect of resolutions 678, 687 and 1441. All of these resolutions were adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter which allows the use of force for the express purpose of restoring international peace and security:
In resolution 678 the Security Council authorised force against Iraq, to eject it from Kuwait and to restore peace and security in the area.
In resolution 687, which set out the ceasefire conditions after Operation Desert Storm, the Security Council imposed continuing obligations on Iraq to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction in order to restore international peace and security in the area. Resolution 687 suspended but did not terminate the authority to use force under resolution 678.
A material breach of resolution 687 revives the authority to use force under resolution 678.
In resolution 1441 the Security Council determined that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of resolution 687, because it has not fully complied with its obligations to disarm under that resolution.
The Security Council in resolution 1441 gave Iraq “a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations” and warned Iraq of the “serious consequences” if it did not.
The Security Council also decided in resolution 1441 that, if Iraq failed at any time to comply with and cooperate fully in the implementation of resolution 1441, that would constitute a further material breach.
It is plain that Iraq has failed so to comply and therefore Iraq was at the time of resolution 1441 and continues to be in material breach.
Thus, the authority to use force under resolution 678 has revived and so continues today.
Resolution 1441 would in terms have provided that a further decision of the Security Council to sanction force was required if that had been intended. Thus, all that resolution 1441 requires is reporting to and discussion by the Security Council of Iraq’s failures, but not an express further decision to authorise force.
I have lodged a copy of this answer, together with resolutions 678, 687 and 1441 in the Library of both Houses."
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Ohioguy: Here is what the UK Attorney General says:
[/QUOTE]
The relevant authority is the United Nations, and it's Secretary General has already stated that war against Iraq would not be justified under international law. I think people are more inclined to believe a neutral authority like the UN and it's secretary general than the government minister of one of the two US allies.
