I'm watching Colin Powell on Meet the Press. I heard his say something like: "Saddam has ignored the legitimacy of the United Nations for the last 12 years." Fine, I agree with that statement. However, how can we attack Iraq in the name of the legitimacy of the UN if the UN Security Council tells us we are not authorized to attack Iraq? If the legitimacy of the UN is so important wouldn't attacking Iraq without the UN's consent violate that legitimacy as well? Either the UN matters or it does not. If it matters, we need to listen to what the UN wants. If it doesn't matter, then go ahead and attack, but quit pretending we're doing it because Saddam has violated UN sanctions.
I guess Powell thinks that the UN hadn't proven their illegitimacy until their recent lack of action in response to Saddam's continued violations... The UN used to be legitimate. But, unless they back the US in enforcing the resolution that they (the UN) themselves passed, they are essentially proving they're irrelevant... Or something like that.
Also, if the advesary isn't adhering to the regulations stipulated by the UN; why should we allow the UN to hinder our progress toward confronting our advesary. This is the double standard we are subjected to all the time. Why don't we allow our advesaries on the football pitch pick and choose which FIFA rules they follow while we adhere to all the rules?
It's all in the vagueries of the resolution itself. At no point in the resolution does it say that if A, B and C isn't done, then Iraq can be invaded and their leader deposed. The Bush administration has included that little gem all on it's own. At the end of the day - I'm totally with Mike on this issue. I hate Bush. And I use the word advisedly. How can so much be lost in 1 generation? Bush the Elder wasn't my cup of tea, but I was fine with his position in the world and didn't feel that he'd be out of his depth managing my local bank, which is the distinct feeling I get with Bush Jr. Having watched his press conference the other day, my hatred for him just multiplied through the roof. Did he or his advisers seriously think that it would allay any fears anyone had? I'm not a great fan of Tony Blair's standing on the issue, but at least the guy puts in the hours. If he's not talking with various members of the EU or NATO or the UN, he having a chin-wag with the Pope and just recently went on MTV Europe to take questions. And boy does it look like it's taking it toll. Thinning hair and bags upon bags under the eyes - something that I guess the little travelled Bush will be afflicted with. It's the arrogance of the man I find so detestable. Errr..sorry..what was the question again?
I think it's pretty clear what the spirit of the resolution was. We can argue technicalities and exact words all day, but it doesn't change the fact that disarmament by force was the consequence of non-compliance from the beginning... I agree, the press conference was useless. Don't know what the reason was for having it other than that he wanted to reiterate his case, which wasn't really necessary. There's no question he's not a great communicator, and it's true Blair runs circles around Bush in that department and when it comes to hitting the pavement. I wish that weren't the case, because I think the actions being taken are appropriate. Bush's lack of articulation hurts his credibility...
Sean Colmes (yea, Fox News) was saying something about a deadline in the (current) resolution around December 4, 2002. I have never seen the actual wording (1441 is it?) but does it have any dates that could be seen as a deadline?
I'm guessing you meant Sean Hannity, since Alan Colmes wouldn't be one to talk of a deadline... Anyway, here's a link to resolution 1441: http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm
Nope! I quoted the resolution in some other thread. It was written specifically to have no deadline and no consequences.
"Serious consequences" is like "sexual relations"... The meaning is clear, yet annoyingly allows for different interpretations to suit one's needs...
Economic sanctions are serious. No-fly zones are serious. Desert Fox was serious. All-out invasion is really, really freaking serious, but it doesn't mean everything else is spritzing seltzer water. The point, though, is that the reason 1441 passed 15-0 was precisely because it was ambiguous, unclear, and toothless. As Powell & co. (inexcusably) only now seem to realize.
They were serious, until they stopped working... They're ignored... It definitely was. It forced Saddam to rebuild his munitions plants... I guess I haven't heard anything from the nations opposing an invasion that they thought serious consequences was anything other than what Powell is indicating. The fact that only a toothless, unclear, ambiguous resolution could pass says more about the nations who are now refusing to enforce it than the resolution itself... You're right, though, that ultimately it's Powell & Co.'s fault for not assuming that so many nations would back out once their feet were put to the fire...
What's so hard to understand about this Mike? It's like if you are driving 65 in a 55mph zone and a guys passes you and you say, jeez that bastard must be doing 90.
Problem is, I'm always the bastard doing 90, looking in my rear view and saying "what a bunch of slowpokes."
I think the US admin was counting on the resolution to be so "open to question" to the degree that they could work it into a war situation. Saddam has played his hand as expected, but the US admin is actually getting what they wanted. The problem is that they have maintained an uneasy and (yes, I will say it) seemingly needless "rush" to confront Iraq. Over these "12 long years" there have been long periods of inaction and Iraq has used this to their advantage. Be that to learn new manners to hide WMD or to work public and business relations, Saddam is still in power and selling oil. In working with the UN, the US admin has put Iraq on notice, got inspectors back in the country. If the US was really concerned about making Iraq accountable for those lost 12 years, and this is to the point of the topic, why not work those resolutions, like inspections, instead of making new ones? Now, it is obvious that the "teeth" of 1441 are the men and women of the US Armed Forces just outside Iraq today. Are France, Germany, Russia and China just looking a gift horse in the mouth?
Maybe that's the result of someone who is forced to work so hard on something that his conscience has serious issue with. Very detrimental to the health.
Dan Loney, can you define serious consequences for us? Because I am thinking your definition along with France's is something like.....we will put more inspectors in your country and you will not like it Saddam. Some of my favorites from 1441: "Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security," "Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein," "Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations" In the second quote it declares that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq. Because they haven't accepted the provisions of the resolution we shall continue the campaign from 1991. So a ceasefire doesn't exist and therefore we are going to use military force to get Saddam to comply, and if he is captured or killed in the process that will be his own undoing. I would hope that a person from Iraq would do the deed before we even need to cross the border. When is enough enough? I'm sick of dealing with these jackoffs. Doing nothing, increasing inspections, while helpful will not get rid of the problem. France and Russia are sitting back and letting this go because of pure financial deals they have with Saddam, not Iraq but with Saddam. This is why the UN doesn't work in this situation. Some countries have elected to do nothing because of financial arrangements rather than what is best for world peace and the people of Iraq. So to answer your question Mike: In this situation the UN doesn't matter, at least France, Germany, and Russia and the tyrannt of Iraq will be taken out and that is the reason we are going in.
If the UN mattered, we wouldn't be in this situation. If you're going to make a resolution forcing Saddam to disarm "or else", then you better be ready to enforce it. The UN clearly is not ready to enforce anything. So why have a resolution to begin with? My take on all of this is we're doing it for self defense and going to the UN to begin with was a formality to try to get as many nations as possible on board with us. I think all along, Bush planned to do this with or without UN support. If he had any intention of waiting for the greenlight from the UN before proceeding, Bush never would have started the military build up around Iraq. Bottom line is the UN has been exposed for the weak body that it is.
Now this is about my opinion? Wow, at least wave to the point as it sails over your head. There's nothing to build a case for full-on invasion in 1441. Read the provision, already. Don't make me quote it again. Why do you think it passed unanimously? You think France and the rest were in favor of war, and have since changed their minds? There wasn't any reason for war when 1441 was passed. There isn't any reason now. Pouting about France won't change anything.
I have stepped through the looking glass, people. White is black, and black is white. Bush is president. After SEPTEMBER 11th, we found a way to lose ALL international leadership standing with our Allies. And people here embrace...Bush's approach, one that is going to, after the dust settles, ENSURE that the Bin Ladens of this earth have new recruits, fresh from burying their mother, or their daughter, or some other innocent who was MADE part of America's "save capitalism," stave off depression, "war" effort. Where are the Democrats? Oh I know, knocking on the doors the Republicans knock on, for the same money, giving the same promises, whoring the same public. All of you who are stupid enough to want this war; go grab a weapon and stand on the front line...please. At least that would begin to make this world make sense again.
Re: Re: I honestly don't understand this Not to be harsh, but whenever I read this sentiment, I immediately know the poster really doesn't have anything to contribute to the discussion. It's like saying, hey, after I saw Zidane's goal in the CL final, that's when I knew he was a good player. If that's when you figured it out, you haven't been paying any attention.
That will only continue on any meaningful level if it turns out that Saddam doesn't have the naughty toys he's accused of - yet denies - having. What's a few more America-haters in the overall scheme of things? Besides, if what you're saying is true then there would already be plenty of Iraqi terrorist recruits in play spawned by the first war 12 years ago. Unless you think that the families of those that were killed back then felt that the Gulf War was justified... Plus, I thought there were no Iraqi terrorists... Curious. Trust me, very few people want this war... And save the "why don't you go stand on the front lines" argument. That's no different than calling for all those against a war to go act as human shields in front of the baby milk plants...
Re: Re: I honestly don't understand this Ok, can we all take notice the UN's first mission? Isn't it about peace? This can be accomplished by blue hat "peace keepers" but there is no unstabe situation in Iraq right now. Another solution may come from diplomatic means. This may be solved by robbing Peter to pay Paul. If many cans of worms will be opened post-Saddam Iraq, these temporary diplomatic solutions to avert war will never address these issues. As for 1441, the world could never agree if we can't accept the fact that it seems to be working. The real questions is, What is there to enforce? Inspections are working to the degree that Mr. Blix says. The real shame is the US nerve to request of Saddam in 10 days what he never could or would do in those "12 long years" the US admin likes to remind us all everyday. The US is going against the spirit of the UN.
Re: Re: Re: I honestly don't understand this Saddam had every opportunity to disclose what weapons of his haven't been destroyed or show proof of those that have in his December report. He didn't. And yet, he's been given three months to change his b(u)llsh(i)t story and all would be forgiven. He hasn't. And we all know Blix can only comment on what he sees, not what he doesn't see. That's his job.
Re: Re: Re: Re: I honestly don't understand this Similarly enough, Bush and his cronies have had more than enough time and opportunities to let us all in on the big secret regarding where these damn weapons are. Show us proof about these things, and I do mean proof - after all plenty of people's lives are immediately at risk (not the possible future risk the administration keeps banging on about) - and things would get immeasurably easier for those that approve of the war.