Why are we blaming the UN Security Council? What we said when 1441 passed

This is why Bush using domestic style politics on the international stage has, and will continue to be, a tragic failure. The American press does not have worldwide reach, and the international community notices things like this. They also resent being lied to, which apparently we don't anymore.

 

Only dan and dave?

 

> This is why Bush using domestic style politics on
> the international stage has, and will continue to
> be, a tragic failure

No, this is why using domestic style politics on the international stage will continue to be a success. The United States is more powerful than the rest of the world combined, so he only really has to convince his own population.

As long as the US succeeds, the rest of the world doesn't matter. It is they that have to come begging to us for favors, which many of them have done. Now, it might be possible that we are going to stumble on this, and France is trying to position itself to kick the giant in the nuts if it happens.

 

Well, why not?

First of all, they don't lack it. It's clear, after their duplicitous intransigence, they never HAD it. When Blair, in his speech today at Parliament, catalogued France's absolute insistence on no ultimatum, it was clear their will to exercise military power in enforcing this resolution, as well as all PREVIOUS resolutions, was non-existent.

Well, no, because we assumed, naively as it turned out, that everyone understood the spirit as well as the letter of the resolution, which had as its core the threat of force to assure complete, full, immediate, and unconditional compliances. Saddam's "acts" of compliance, were incomplete, partial, delayed, and conditional.

Meanwhile, some readers of the text, in a desperate effort to see what they want to see, see mirage-like in the language a call for a second resolution. It calls for a convening.

We can't??

In about 24 hours or so, we will.

Meanwhile, Blair explicitly references the legal foundantion of 1441 in his speech today.

Oh, and enjoy the case of hot sauce coming your way. Make sure you wash your hands before you apply.

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There's no 'automaticity' and this is a two-stage process, and in that regard we have met the principal concerns that have been expressed for the resolution. Whatever violation there is, or is judged to exist, will be dealt with in the council, and the council will have an opportunity to consider the matter before any other action is taken.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The council did have an opportunity to consider the matter...

You can't argue that "serious consequences" does not authorize force while arguing that "consider the matter" means a second resolution is required before any other action can be taken...

 

Could someone explain to me exactly why the whole 1441 holds any water in a legal kind of way?

What I fail to see is this:

- Iraq signing anything under the threat of violence would make it illegal in about 99% of the world.
- What power does the UN actually have? Doesn't seem like the US have to comply with UN rules... so why would Iraq have to?

 

Superdave....

You are attempting to revise history. The French knew what "Serious Consequences" meant.

The entire Counsel knew.

Secretary of State Powell knew....

At some point, you have to STOP blaming the United States for this situation, and start placing the blame were it squarely belongs.... Saddam Hussian.

Does it not concern you in the least that YOU are becoming marginalized?

 

Re: Re: Why are we blaming the UN Security Council? What we said when 1441 passed

Then why didn't they use clear and concise language like "military invasion and occupation?

Because everybody disagreed on what "serious consequences" meant.

 

Re: Re: Re: Why are we blaming the UN Security Council? What we said when 1441 passed

Superdave...

This IS why I like and RESPECT you so much. You stick to your guns, and fight the good fight, and do it with a sense of humor!

However, it is hard to argue that ANYONE did not understand the plain meaning and intent of the United States and what Serious Consequences meant to this Country. You would have to live on Mars not to know that the United States was fully intent on disarming or removing Saddam Hussain.

In 1998, the Senate unanmously voted for regime change when it authorized the bombing of Iraq (WITHOUT UN PERMISSION I MIGHT ADD).

The President told the UN directly in September that either it was going to be relevant, and ENFORCE its resolutions for Iraqi disarmenment or the United States would lead a coalition of the willing and do so UNILATERALY!

1441 was known by all to be Saddam's last chance.

Iraq was found to be in material breach of the previous 16 resolutions by a vote of 15-0. It was told to DISARM IMMEDIATELY. Without Immediate disarmement, serious consequences SHALL follow.

The French, and now you, are being totally disengenous to suggest that you (and the French) did not understand 1441 to mean WHAT IT SAID!

Keep fighting the good fight... but always remember the following:

"It's the soldier, not the campus organizer, who's given us freedom to demonstrate.
"It's the soldier, not the reporter, who's given us freedom of the press.
"It's the soldier, not the poet, who's given us freedom of speech.
"It's the soldier, who serves under the flag, who defends the protesters' right to burn the flag.
"Isn't it time now to demonstrate that we support our troops?
"Were it not for the brave, there'd be no land of the free."

 

Re: Re: Re: Why are we blaming the UN Security Council? What we said when 1441 passed

You're smarter than this. Clear phrases like military invasion and occupation don't find there way into diplomatic resolutions. It cuts off further negotiations, discussions and options.

That doesn't change the obvious. The French did not want disarmament by force from the beginning. They tried 1441 because it was the minimum the US would accept and bought time. Four months later, the US came back for the UN approval and international support for an invasion, and the French said "over my dead veto." So we have a dead veto.

You can argue that the US has botched diplomacy, is acting arrogantly, etc. ... and I generally agree. But please don't try to paint the French position as up-front and open. If it were, they would have vetoed 1441.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why are we blaming the UN Security Council? What we said when 1441 passed

I couldn't agree with you more!

If we both agree that this is the case (and I believe it to be true), it is hard to argue that inspections were working.

The burden was on Iraq and not on the inspectors. Iraq could have disarmed immediately. It CHOOSE not to, knowing war would result. Inspections were intended to verify what Iraq was suppose to do, not search willy nilly all over the place.

The BLAME lies with Saddam. He controlled his own future. He could have disarmed. He choose not to. He will now be disarmed by force.

 

Re: Re: Re: Why are we blaming the UN Security Council? What we said when 1441 passed

We all know you are an American League pitcher that doesn't even have to face the heat. You keep pitching those soft ball grapefruits and hope they stick.

Just because someone isn't blinded by party faith and the Clinton "Golden" era, they must not add a darn thing to this forum. Man, there goes my selfworth.

How many new threads are you going to create to blame Bush for something, one-trick-dave?

Here is a clue.
We are blaming the UN Security Council because it has no balls. It has zero power if it does not put any teeth behind its words. Any questions?

Plus, if you look at the structure of it, you too will question its worth. Cameroon has a say in anything outside their little nation makes it a joke. Not a sick joke like having Lybia on the UN Human Rights council, but a joke none the less. Then again, this is the UN.

It has a set rotation of nations while others keep their spot, can veto anyone else and you think this is a good idea? Man, I thought Dems would be the first against having to find "super majorities".

One more thing.
Quoting yourself in your sig line is the definition of weak.

 

But also if its a baseball metaphor in a soccer site. Bad form, indeed.

 

Boxing OK?

What is this?
"I know what you are, but what am I?" Smack!

You need to learn to roll with it. Not every post is the killer left upper cut to end the fight. Heck, an effective jab can work wonders in the overall scheme of things. Please note that these metaphors are just that, metaphors.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why are we blaming the UN Security Council? What we said when 1441 pass

The goal was NEVER containment. It was DISARMEMENT. And the process was NOT working because Saddam REFUSED to disarm.

Isreal is not the subject here, and changing subjects does not help your cause. Stop comparing apples and oranges.

Iraq has invaded its nieghbors. Iraq has used weapons of mass destruction. Iraq lost the Kuwaiti war, and agreed to disarm as a result. It has refused to live up to WHAT SADDAM AGREED TO DO and has refused to do what the Security Counsel demanded for 12 LONG YEARS.

Frankly, who gives one RATS A$$ about what Angola, Camoroon, or Chile thinks. They have absolutely no stake in Iraq, are not engaged in a worldwide war with terrorist whose goal is to murder you (YES YOU) because you are an American.

The Commander and Chief has stated that Iraq represents a clear and present danger. HIS oath of office REQUIRES that he supoort and DEFEND the consitution. The President has concluded, as has the overwhelming majority of Americans, that 12 years is long enough. Sitting soldiers in the desert for a few more weeks/months is not going to change the conduct of the Iraqi government.

Superdave, you do not do yourself credit when you refer to the President in such a way. You may not agree with him, but only reflects on you when you disrespect the office holder.

Having said that, I not clear what you do not understand. You admit that Saddam only (your words) "co-operated in a half-assed way".

Define for me what you think "full, strict and immediate compliance" means?

Or are you of the point of view that 55 mph means that you can go 65 mph? Try that in Traffic Court.

Saddam has the BURDEN OF PROOF. He failed miserably. You are right, there is no plan B. Plan A is all that exists. He failed to disarm, and we will now disarm him.

The French view, as you espouse, is no more valid then the ability of the French to affect the course of human events. That view, like France, is hollow, shallow, and fails to recognized the FACTS as they will now be. In other words, that point of view has as much relevance as an Iraqi Tank Division will just north of Kuwait. Very little to none.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Why are we blaming the UN Security Council? What we said when 1441 passed

This quote has not aged well. American history has shown it has been civilians and activists who have done far more for freedom of speech than soldiers. Unless we're talking about German freedom.

I tried to support the troops, but Bush is sending them off to war anyway.

 

Superdave...

Help me out here. I am trying to understand your position...

How do you arrive at the conlusion that goal was "EVER" containment...when 1441 makes it rather clear that the goal was disarmement

If France wants to be disengenous and act as though what 1441 stated is not "today" what France wanted it to "state", how does that change the plain meaning of 1441....

Here is what French Foreign Minister De Villipen stated to the UN Security Counsel on 6 February concerning the plain meaning of 1441....


This policy rests on three fundamental points:

A clear objective on which we cannot compromise:
the disarmament of Iraq;

A method: a rigorous system of inspections which demands Iraq's active cooperation and affirms the central role of the Security Council at each stage;

A requirement: our unity. This gave the message we unanimously addressed to Baghdad its full force. I hope that our meeting today will strengthen this unity.

There was a fourth element which he conveniently ignored......CONSEQUENCES FOR NON-COMPLIANCE: E.G. "serious consequences" for remaining in material breach.

De Villipen further went on to state:

With the choice between military intervention and an inspections regime that is inadequate for lack of cooperation on Iraq's part, we must choose to strengthen decisively the means of inspection. This is what France advocates today.

France admitted that Iraq was not cooperating....ON 6 FEBRUARY 2003!!!! Lack of cooperation is a material breach, resulting in serious consequences.

At what point WILL YOU admit that Saddam failed to abide by the language of 1441.

SADDAM was told to co-operate. Doing what France suggests....doubling or tripling the number of inspectors is simply ridiculous! If Iraq does not co-operate, as FRANCE ASSERTED, then no amount of inspectors will matter! France made itself irrelevent and that of the UN by simply not being serious. People who are not serious cannot be taken seriously!

France UNDERSTOOD that 1441 meant war if Saddam did not immediately disarm. They negotiated 1441 for 8 weeks prior to voting 15-0.