Obviously the UK and the US have thought the issue of legality through, and they believe they are on firm ground.
You are still operating on the assumption the UN is relevant.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
You are still operating on the assumption the UN is relevant.
[/QUOTE]
That sounds like something a dictator such as Saddam Hussein would say, in an attempt to ignore UN Resolutions. One would hope that is not the argument one should hear from democratic governments such as the US and the UK.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Ohioguy:
Obviously the UK and the US have thought the issue of legality through, and they believe they are on firm ground.
[/QUOTE]
If that is so they would not have spent all the last month lobbying for a second resolution specifically authorising force? Now the fact they failed to win round any of the 11/12 other members of the UNSC they have now declared everything is "legal" and the UN is irrelevant. That's what sore losers and outlaw regimes do...which the US-UK have just become.
All this talk about "UN is not relevant", "we will go to war even if UN says No", will come to bare when Bush Administration will be facing N. Korea ... not too long from now.
Just wait, all the legitimacy of UN along with following what the majority says will be a MUST to do in that case. It's only non-relevant when it's against the wishes of the white house.
No Nadia,
How many resolutions do you need? Five, Ten, eighteen? One resolution that means something would be infinitely better. The US is not ignoring UN resolutions, it is implementing them. I said some time ago that the prevailing UN resolution would be the cease fire agreement. Long before the UN there was international law on the generation and breaking of a cease fire agreement. Essentially when Saddams weapons were found years ago that made him in violation of the cease fire agreement. The war could have been restarted at any time based on that violation.
How about 12 years to comply. Why do we need 12years and one month, or two months, or three months?
Saddam understands nothing but power. We are now going to communicate with him in one gigantic powerplay.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Ohioguy:
The US is not ignoring UN resolutions, it is implementing them.
[/QUOTE]
Why are you quoting UN Resolutions now? I thought you said the UN was not relevant - make up your mind?
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
**I said some time ago that the prevailing UN resolution would be the cease fire agreement. ...] The war could have been restarted at any time based on that violation.*
[/quote]
So, you are stating that there already existed a UN Resolution that authorizes military force. Ahaan... so why did the US spend so much time attempting to coerce the Council's members (the four other permanent ones as well as the several non permanent ones, mostly the African ones) into voting yes? And why wait until after 9-11? Why wait until after the inspectors had been allowed in, after private palaces had been opened up, after Iraq had started destroying its al Samoud missiles, after the weapons inspectors/the IAEA/el Baradei and Blix had all stated that Iraq is cooperating - why wait until after all this progress and cooperation to return to a long-ago forgotten UN Resolution?
*We are now going to communicate with him in one gigantic powerplay. *
For some, this will be a video game. For others, it will mean burying their father, son, or daughter. Or wife. There is a massive difference. You want your "powerplay" with Saddam Hussein - please go do it on some isolated island. After 9-11, Americans should understand first and foremost what it feels to have civilians attacked - no civilian's life is worth a "powerplay".
Oh, frankly I believed it would always come to this. To imagine that Saddam would ever surrender his weapons, or obey resolutions is to ignore the nature of the man. In your heart you know that no resolution would ever come short of brinksmanship.
Unified brinksmanship might have saved lives, and not allowed Saddam to misjudge the will of a unified world. Instead, equivocation has let us to the brink, and will allow Saddam to misjudge the will of the US and the UK.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Ohioguy:
Oh, frankly I believed it would always come to this.
[/QUOTE]
What that the US would be isolated in the world, and without the support of 80% of the UN Security Council members? Now you failed to answer my last question which touched on your double standards. Why are you quoting UN Resolutions now, after you said the UN was not relevant?
I think it’s called ‘selective-relevancy’ for example the US would like the UN to be instrumental in guiding North Korea back to the negotiating table it's in global interests to do so, whilst the US takes care of it’s own ‘interests’ in Iraq.
Get with the programme!
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
Oh, frankly I believed it would always come to this. To imagine that Saddam would ever surrender his weapons, or obey resolutions is to ignore the nature of the man. In your heart you know that no resolution would ever come short of brinksmanship.
Unified brinksmanship might have saved lives, and not allowed Saddam to misjudge the will of a unified world. Instead, equivocation has let us to the brink, and will allow Saddam to misjudge the will of the US and the UK.
[/QUOTE]
So you exactly mean to say that Bush just took UN as BS way to fool the world, didnt succeed and now going to 'fix the nature of the man 'in an open way?
"Why are you quoting UN Resolutions now, after you said the UN was not relevant?"
It seems to be all that you want to talk about.
But, frankly diplomacy has been of little help over the past 12 years. It's over, get over it.
Now the issue is, does Saddam want to live or die, and will fifty unelected genocidal murders take down a whole country. Believe me, if we could drag Saddam to a deserted island to discuss this in private, we certainly would. (there is a nice little spot in Cuba I could recommend.)
The sham at the UN is over, and all of this thrashing around about "legality" is last gasp desperation.
Bush went to the UN to try and get Saddam to disarm, that has failed and now action is going to be taken, that was always the plan.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Ohioguy:
The sham at the UN is over...
[/QUOTE]
So you are admitting that the US is not going by the UN but according to it's own limited view of legality and selective reading of international law. Thank God 80% of the world does not support such recklessness and illegality, and the United States has becoem the rogue state it accuses others of being.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
Bush went to the UN to try and get Saddam to disarm, that has failed and now action is going to be taken, that was always the plan.
[/QUOTE]
No the USA has failed to win the support of the 80% of states of the UNSC to it's side, which is a devestating defeat for American diplomacy not seen in more than 30 years.
I think more than 80% of world opinion is against the rogue mad man, with resignations abounding and protests in the streets. It's about time to ask George Mush to up and leave the US and live in exile in Burundi.
I applaud Saddam at his ability to play with the world public opinion as he has. Over 12 years of "diplomacy" he has outlasted us, and has worn down the concensus of the world. He has won a 12 year battle of diplomatic wills.
That does not make it right.
He is wrong if he beleives that he can survive much longer however. If you consider this to be "rogue" behavior, then so be it. Time will tell who is right and who is wrong. After Saddam there will be thousands of stories of torture and abuse, and the most disgusting of human behavior. Americans are counting on the full and unadulterated truth to vindicate them. I believe this will happen.
Well you can keep bombing the world until everyone believes you.
^ So true.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
Bush went to the UN to try and get Saddam to disarm...
[/QUOTE]
The UN says it needs more time to finish its job. The US can't just pull out when things are not going its way (i.e., when the world could see that Iraq was cooperating)... unless i am mistaken this isn't kindergarten where immaturity in behaviour is tolerated. The UN was doing its mandate that it was forced (by the US) to do - ludicrous (to say the least) to pull out now precisely when disarmament and cooperation were occurring.
Nadia,
If Iraq was "cooperating", why would they not allow scientists to leave the country under UN supervision? Please tell me precisely why this cannot happen if Saddam was really serious about disarming? Do you really BELIEVE that Saddam gave the world a full and complete disclosure?
The UN needs more TIME. Ok, we will give Iraq 12 years. Starting in 1991.