[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
^ So true.
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.
[/QUOTE]
Nadia: What you lose site of is the fact that not one country in the UN Security Council (with the possible exception of Syria) has maintained that Saddam has complied with 1441. What you also miss is that it is not and was not the job of the UN inspectors to disarm Saddam. That was Saddam's job. Whether he did disarm a little and whether he has cooperated a bit more than before, etc., etc., etc., does not equal compliance and disarmament.
The only issue of debate is what to do about his non-compliance. France made it clear that it would not vote in favor of a new resolution calling for military force in the face of non-compliance. If that is its present attitude, it never should have voted for 1441 which already authorizes the use of military force for non-compliance. I suggest it is France exhibiting kindergarten behavior for backing away from its prior commitment as soon as it appears as if the action it previously approved is necessary.
Resolution 1441 told Iraq that full compliance was necessary in order to secure international peace and security, Saddam has decided not to comply. The U.S. as a Member State is taking action to uphold the resolution that called for disarmament. Iraq was “ repeatedly warned that it would face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations.” -resolution 1441
The U.S. as a Member State is taking action to uphold the resolution that called for disarmament.
[/QUOTE]
Please show us the resolution which states that force i.e. all necessary means can be used against Iraq in furthernace of 1441? Also please provide a list of the countries on the UNSC who have backed the US call for force against Iraq. Thank you.
ah, OG, it is so indicative that the ONLY one aspect of seeming non-cooperation you could dig up, was this one. Hey forget the palaces being opened, forget the destruction of the al Samoud missiles, forget that weapons inspectors were allowed to roam ALL over Iraq with no government minders, no interference, forget the fact that some of the “evidence” that Powell so brazenly showed to the Security Council was based upon forged/manipulated documents - or even worse, stuff written by a student not much older than me. Hey forget all that because, of course, the US had already made up its mind to invade come what may. Good show of hypocrisy i must say :k:
MyVoice,
You state that If that is [France's] present attitude, it never should have voted for 1441 which already authorizes the use of military force for non-compliance.
Are you certain about that? Unless i am mistaken, France has publically denied this (last week, i think).
[QUOTE] Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
**MyVoice,
You state that *If that is [France's] present attitude, it never should have voted for 1441 which already authorizes the use of military force for non-compliance.
Are you certain about that? Unless i am mistaken, France has publically denied this (last week, i think).
[/QUOTE]
I think you are mistaken. The "serious consequences" language is and was very well understood to mean military force. The question was and is how was the military force provision to be triggered. 1441 was deliberately silent as to triggering mechanisms so as to leave all parties in a position to make their face saving and covering arguments later. Three alternative interpretations are immediately apparent:
1. No further UN action was required (this is the current US position);
2. The Security Council would make a finding through a resolution or otherwise that Iraq was in material breach of 1441;
3. The Security Council would need a second resolution specifically authorizing force.
IMO, the French and some others voted for 1441 because they were sure Saddam would jump at his last opportunity to disarm and no one would have to debate the triggering issue later. Unfortunately for everyone, Saddam didn't jump on his last chance. Now, the French and others want to back away from the military force provision for non-compliance.
As I have stated many times before on a whole host of contexts, one of the main problems with UN Security Council Resolutions is that the language is almost always compromised to get consensus. But the consensus language is always subject to multiple different interpretations. This makes it very hard to get agreement later as to when a resolution has been violated and whether the UN ought to enforce it through the use of force.
Unfortunately for you, you and your administration are about the only people in the world, who interpret 1441 like that. Good for you. Bad for the world.
If all of that had NOT been preceded by YEARs of conflict with the inspectors you might have a point. Trapping them for days, NOT opening doors, hiding a nuclear program for four years of inspections, all of that tends to make Iraq lose a little credibility. And what are you thinking saying there were no government minders? Even the Human Shileds had minders.
What do I believe? I believe that in the four years that the inspectors were not present that Saddam had adequate time to reconstitute his programs and hide them. Thus the physical evidence could easily be removed. But talking to the scientists could have helped to expose Saddam or it may well have confirmed that nothing has gone on. How easily you believe a man who should be under indictment for war crimes.
As Myvoice says in another thread, instead of relying on information from the outside, a post Saddam Iraq may yield lots of truths. But frankly, a great truth was told in the investigation of the Anfal Campaigns. The Iraqi’s kept spectacular records of virtually every aspect. To imagine that they would unilaterally dispose of anthrax and VX with no records is completely unbelievable. Even Hans the Meek does not believe that.
Frankly, why did the US focus on the WMD? I think he should have been indicted for war crimes, and that should have been the focus. There are literally 18 tons of evidence proving that. No Debate. But I fall back to Ken Roth’s frustration at his inability to indict Saddam:
“With this extraordinarily detailed evidence of genocide, Human Rights Watch launched a campaign to bring Saddam to justice. At the time the U.N. Security Council was creating special tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, but there was no consensus for similar action on Iraq. France and Russia, each with extensive business interests in Iraq, threatened to wield their veto. China, worried about analogies to its treatment of Tibetans, was disinclined to support an International Criminal Tribunal for Iraq. With no International Criminal Court then in the works, and the Pinochet option of exercising universal jurisdiction in national courts not yet widely recognized, the prospect of criminal prosecution was remote.” http://www.hrw.org/editorials/2002/iraq_032202.htm
Mr. Roth’s editorial from March 22nd 2002 seemed very predictive of the future… Lo and behold China and Russia and France did threaten veto’s. Wither the UN…
Was listening to Robin Cook giving his statement as to why he resigned, in the British Parliament. He made some very good points one of which is the following:
The US and UK say that UN had give Saddam 12 years to disarm and that their patience has run out as he has not disarmed. UN asked Israel 20 years ago to vacate the occupied lands. Why have their patience not run out with Israel?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by chosen1: *
Was listening to Robin Cook giving his statement as to why he resigned, in the British Parliament. He made some very good points one of which is the following:
The US and UK say that UN had give Saddam 12 years to disarm and that their patience has run out as he has not disarmed. UN asked Israel 20 years ago to vacate the occupied lands. Why have their patience not run out with Israel?
[/QUOTE]
Yes, and he got a standing ovation for this historic speech, and tore into Blair's case for this illegal war.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by chosen1: *
Was listening to Robin Cook giving his statement as to why he resigned, in the British Parliament. He made some very good points one of which is the following:
The US and UK say that UN had give Saddam 12 years to disarm and that their patience has run out as he has not disarmed. UN asked Israel 20 years ago to vacate the occupied lands. Why have their patience not run out with Israel?
[/QUOTE]
excellnet point, i bet this point will NOT get any projection in Skly news or CNN or whatever western Media...
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Majestic: *
No country in the world has the RIGHT to tell another countries leader to leave his HOMELAND, that is just nuts.
[/QUOTE]
Saddam gave up that right when he gassed his own people and invaded another country.
Being a leader of a country does not make one an immortal. You still have to answer for your crimes, whether in this life or the hereafter.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Majestic: *
No country in the world has the RIGHT to tell another countries leader to leave his HOMELAND, that is just nuts.
[/QUOTE]