We do now, at least in England. War coverage 24 hours makes it quit hard to oppose something that your country's troops are involved in. I dislike any arguements over numbers of support anymore, as numbers do not prove anything.
-
We are currently performing site maintenance, parts of civfanatics are currently offline, but will come back online in the coming days. For more updates please see here.
Resolution 1441
- Thread starter nihilistic
- Start date
We do now, at least in England. War coverage 24 hours makes it quit hard to oppose something that your country's troops are involved in. I dislike any arguements over numbers of support anymore, as numbers do not prove anything.
Phantom Lord
live by the sword
I don't think so. Media coverage in different countries is certainly different, but eg in Germany it's very likely that someone accesses both german and american (typically CNN) media. I don't think that many US citizens watch german news on the other hand. Language is one reason or this, for example I think there are more english speakers in Germany than german speakers in the US.
You normally won't get told about propaganda happening in your own media, but I've seen several reports about american propaganda attempts in the US as well as in countries like Germany.
Another point is that non-US/UK journalists have no access to military press conferences in Iraq right now, it seems all war information is heavily controlled by the US.
nihilistic
Intergalatic Delivery Boy
It remains to be investigateed whether the recent surge in Bush's support is because by a feeling a nationalism or a feeling of inevitability. In either case, we have all deviated to much from the topic of this thread. If you have disagree with the conclusion we seemed to have reached resolutions 1441, 660, 678, and 687 are wrong, enlighten us with some evidence as to why they are so.
>>Another point is that non-US/UK journalists have no access to military press conferences in Iraq right now, it seems all war information is heavily controlled by the US.
Giving away information about current and future war operations is a great way to get your own troops killed.
>>I don't think so. Media coverage in different countries is certainly different, but eg in Germany it's very likely that someone accesses both german and american (typically CNN) media. I don't think that many US citizens watch german news on the other hand. Language is one reason or this, for example I think there are more english speakers in Germany than german speakers in the US.
If you knew anything about American media, you'd know that it has been very anti-Bush since he was a Texas governor. I can assure you, some of the American mass media has been very, very vocally against the war. We are not being brainwashed by one-sided propoganda.
>>Do so. Bring me non-government employed law expert in international law who has no financial or political interest in the Iraq war.
American law expert - biased.
German law expert - unbiased.
At least admit that the German law expert might be a wee bit biased.
>>If you have disagree with the conclusion we seemed to have reached resolutions 1441, 660, 678, and 687 are wrong, enlighten us with some evidence as to why they are so.
Who is "we" and "us"? The people who are pro-war agree that "serious consequences" means that if Iraq was in material breach, when they most certainly were and, judging from the supposedly non-existant scuds that materialized magically over Kuwait, continue to be, then war must soon follow. The pro-war people then point to other resolutions which 1441 reference directly, especially 687, that say quite clearly that all member nations must uphold the resolutions concerning Iraq by any necessary means. In fact, 1441 even says that Iraq was in violation of all relevant resolutions prior to 1441. It also says that 1441 is one last, final opportunity to comply to all relevant resolutions. Saddam never came to compliance with any of those resolutions, as stated repeatedly by Blix, and by 1441 severe consequence must then follow, and by 687 any means necessary to enforce compliance can be used. However, France threatened to veto any resolution on a timetable resulting in force if there was non-compliance, and therefore the US, UK, and its allies were forced into the odd situation of enforcing UN resolutions without the blessing of the UN, due to the complete failure of the UN to bring about any resolution that would mention enforcement.
The anti-war people (I would guess this is the "we" you are talking about) say that 1441's severe consequences do not mean war, and that somehow 687's assertation that the UN uphold the relevant resolutions by any means also is not a justification for war. Since no resolution passed after 1441 explicitly said war, there is no UN justification for war.
Giving away information about current and future war operations is a great way to get your own troops killed.
>>I don't think so. Media coverage in different countries is certainly different, but eg in Germany it's very likely that someone accesses both german and american (typically CNN) media. I don't think that many US citizens watch german news on the other hand. Language is one reason or this, for example I think there are more english speakers in Germany than german speakers in the US.
If you knew anything about American media, you'd know that it has been very anti-Bush since he was a Texas governor. I can assure you, some of the American mass media has been very, very vocally against the war. We are not being brainwashed by one-sided propoganda.
>>Do so. Bring me non-government employed law expert in international law who has no financial or political interest in the Iraq war.
American law expert - biased.
German law expert - unbiased.
At least admit that the German law expert might be a wee bit biased.
>>If you have disagree with the conclusion we seemed to have reached resolutions 1441, 660, 678, and 687 are wrong, enlighten us with some evidence as to why they are so.
Who is "we" and "us"? The people who are pro-war agree that "serious consequences" means that if Iraq was in material breach, when they most certainly were and, judging from the supposedly non-existant scuds that materialized magically over Kuwait, continue to be, then war must soon follow. The pro-war people then point to other resolutions which 1441 reference directly, especially 687, that say quite clearly that all member nations must uphold the resolutions concerning Iraq by any necessary means. In fact, 1441 even says that Iraq was in violation of all relevant resolutions prior to 1441. It also says that 1441 is one last, final opportunity to comply to all relevant resolutions. Saddam never came to compliance with any of those resolutions, as stated repeatedly by Blix, and by 1441 severe consequence must then follow, and by 687 any means necessary to enforce compliance can be used. However, France threatened to veto any resolution on a timetable resulting in force if there was non-compliance, and therefore the US, UK, and its allies were forced into the odd situation of enforcing UN resolutions without the blessing of the UN, due to the complete failure of the UN to bring about any resolution that would mention enforcement.
The anti-war people (I would guess this is the "we" you are talking about) say that 1441's severe consequences do not mean war, and that somehow 687's assertation that the UN uphold the relevant resolutions by any means also is not a justification for war. Since no resolution passed after 1441 explicitly said war, there is no UN justification for war.
nihilistic
Intergalatic Delivery Boy
The point of this thread is to stop the endless "I believe ..." posts. Present actual evidence that 1441 and 687 allow force, or that 660 and 678 extends beyong Gulf War 1, and I will listen. I will add again that the purpose of the UN is to encourage PEACE.
MrPresident
Anglo-Saxon Liberal
The purpose of the UN is to secure the status quo.
etj4Eagle
ACME Salesman
I guess one cause for differences in interpetation is the different stock the sides place on the implied elements of the resolution. In the US at least, the implied parts of any contract are also binding on both parties. It is harder to enforce, since it ain't in writing, but courts will hold you to the implied parts. This is why documents that describe limits of responsibility will contain language to the form of "...including in implied obligation..."
Consequently since during negotiation of this resolution it was understood by the parties involved that serious consequences meant war and additionally that France agreed that war wolud be called for if Saddam did not fully and proactively comply, in US courts 1441 does fully justify our actions. And furthermore France would be seen as the party acting against the UN.
Consequently since during negotiation of this resolution it was understood by the parties involved that serious consequences meant war and additionally that France agreed that war wolud be called for if Saddam did not fully and proactively comply, in US courts 1441 does fully justify our actions. And furthermore France would be seen as the party acting against the UN.
What is "peace"? Was it peace when the US lead forces drove Iraq out of Kuwait? I guess it depends on your definition of peace.
1441 REFERENCES ALL THOSE OTHER RESOLUTIONS! Why don't you read the resolution before you continue arguing that what is quoted in 1441 as being a binding resolution is not really in effect. 660, 687, etc were mostly passed AFTER Gulf War 1, as terms of armistice. They were mentioned RIGHT AT THE TOP OF 1441! What more factual evidence do you need before you are convinced those resolutions are still in effect?
Technically, the minute the first cease fire resolution was broken, the US had a legal right to continue its war against Iraq. That's generally what happens when a cease-fire agreement is broken; if you break the cease-fire then war automatically restarts. But yet we tried for 12 years passing resolution after resolution asking for Iraq to please come into compliance. When do we admit that words have no effect and that action must occur? Well, we were trying to determine that but France decided it was going to veto any resolution that would say that action would occur.
1441 REFERENCES ALL THOSE OTHER RESOLUTIONS! Why don't you read the resolution before you continue arguing that what is quoted in 1441 as being a binding resolution is not really in effect. 660, 687, etc were mostly passed AFTER Gulf War 1, as terms of armistice. They were mentioned RIGHT AT THE TOP OF 1441! What more factual evidence do you need before you are convinced those resolutions are still in effect?
Technically, the minute the first cease fire resolution was broken, the US had a legal right to continue its war against Iraq. That's generally what happens when a cease-fire agreement is broken; if you break the cease-fire then war automatically restarts. But yet we tried for 12 years passing resolution after resolution asking for Iraq to please come into compliance. When do we admit that words have no effect and that action must occur? Well, we were trying to determine that but France decided it was going to veto any resolution that would say that action would occur.
nihilistic
Intergalatic Delivery Boy
The first Gulf War was sanctioned. I'm not arguing against that.
I can refer to my own sources of irrelevant published material, like William Golding's "Lord of the Flies".
I read every word before posting here.
Check the dates before you post:
resolution 660: August 2, 1990
resolution 678: November 29, 1990
Beginning of Gulf War: January 17, 1991
End of Gulf War: February 27, 1991
resolution 687: April 3, 1991
Of course, this is not the factual evidence you are looking for, move on.
Your rules of engagement are quite lame.
EDIT: overreacted somewhat, sorry.
MrPresident
Anglo-Saxon Liberal
I don't think Hitler had any excuse for starting a war. He just said he would start one and then did.
>>I can refer to my own sources of irrelevant published material, like William Golding's "Lord of the Flies".
You are saying that 687 is not relevant to 1441. You see, unlike Lord of the Flies, 687 is actually a part of 1441. 1441 specifically mentions 687. It specifically quotes the section of 687 that mentions the need to enforce all resolutions regarding Iraq that are passed after 660 by all necessary means. If the top of 1441 uses 687 as a reference, then 687 must be relevant. 687 says that the UN must enforce all resolutions concerning Iraq from 660 onward. Therefore, by 687, all those resolutions are still valid. And from 1441, 687 is still valid. If you dont' believe me, READ 1441. In fact, before you post about the need for any more facts, READ 1441. It is impossible for me to argue with you since you deny that what is said on 1441 is actually said in 1441.
>>Your rules of engagement are quite lame.
They are also quite legal under international law.
You are saying that 687 is not relevant to 1441. You see, unlike Lord of the Flies, 687 is actually a part of 1441. 1441 specifically mentions 687. It specifically quotes the section of 687 that mentions the need to enforce all resolutions regarding Iraq that are passed after 660 by all necessary means. If the top of 1441 uses 687 as a reference, then 687 must be relevant. 687 says that the UN must enforce all resolutions concerning Iraq from 660 onward. Therefore, by 687, all those resolutions are still valid. And from 1441, 687 is still valid. If you dont' believe me, READ 1441. In fact, before you post about the need for any more facts, READ 1441. It is impossible for me to argue with you since you deny that what is said on 1441 is actually said in 1441.
>>Your rules of engagement are quite lame.
They are also quite legal under international law.
nihilistic
Intergalatic Delivery Boy
The opposite of the universal quantifier (All ...) is the inverse existential quantifer (there exist one that is not ...). I didn't say 687 is irrelevant. I said that 660 and 678 are. I said that 687 didn't authorize force. I believe that I have made made that very clear as I have said it multiple times. However, the passages in 660 and 678 that authorize war are authorizing Gulf War 1, not 2.
Even if, say, you go back in time and sneaked an authorization clause in 687, it would still be irrelevant since the new resolution 1441 specifically called for respecting Iraq's sovereignty.
nihilistic
Intergalatic Delivery Boy
Why are they lame? Suppose there is an accident? Or if some hotshot fires off a few bullets? Is war required then? What would happen if say, instead of bringing the matter into the UN, JFK proceeds to declare war on USSR during the Cuban Missle Crisis? The perceived threat of nuclear missles in Cuba is a few thousand times more grave than the puny anti-aircraft fire Iraq decides to invite the us spyplanes with.
678, as quoted in 1441, says that all necessary force must be used to uphold all resolutions from 660 onward. Thefore, if 678 is valid, all resolutions from 660 onward must be valid, because 678 is concerned with enforcement of those resolutions.
But even still, 1441 references though it does not quote those resolutions. Have you read 1441 yet? I'm tired of waiting for you to read it so I'll just quote it for you.
>>Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661
(1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March
1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15
August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and
1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,
This from the second line of resolution 1441. Those resolutions are all relevant.
>>Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all
necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August
1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore
international peace and security in the area,
Look, a reference to how 678 is an enforcement resolution on 660, found in the text of 1441. 660 must be valid too. Furthermore, in 1441 it says that 678 that the all necessary means (which must include war) must be used to uphold all relevant resolutions after 660. All resolutions concerning Iraqi disarmament are relevant. Therefore force is justified by 678, as affirmed by 1441, to enforce all the resolutions which were broken by Iraq.
But even still, 1441 references though it does not quote those resolutions. Have you read 1441 yet? I'm tired of waiting for you to read it so I'll just quote it for you.
>>Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661
(1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March
1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15
August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and
1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,
This from the second line of resolution 1441. Those resolutions are all relevant.
>>Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all
necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August
1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore
international peace and security in the area,
Look, a reference to how 678 is an enforcement resolution on 660, found in the text of 1441. 660 must be valid too. Furthermore, in 1441 it says that 678 that the all necessary means (which must include war) must be used to uphold all relevant resolutions after 660. All resolutions concerning Iraqi disarmament are relevant. Therefore force is justified by 678, as affirmed by 1441, to enforce all the resolutions which were broken by Iraq.
nihilistic
Intergalatic Delivery Boy
I knew there was something weird about you stating that, but at first I can't figure out why. Now I need to ask you: Aren't you the one who insisted that international law should bow to the US because the US has the most guns? Why are you using international law to justify us actions now?
I knew there was something weird about you stating that, but at first I can't figure out why. Now I need to ask you: Aren't you the one who insisted that international law should bow to the US because the US has the most guns? Why are you using international law to justify us actions now?
Because you are asking me to justify it under international law. So here I am, justifying it for you uner international law. It would be very hard for me to justify something being legal under international law if I was not allowed to reference international law, now wouldn't it?
Edit: I didn't clearly read your post. No I am not the one saying that international law should bow to the US because the US has the most guns. I'm saying that the US should ignore the UN because the UN is not concerned with protecting American lives.
Because you are asking me to justify it under international law. So here I am, justifying it for you uner international law. It would be very hard for me to justify something being legal under international law if I was not allowed to reference international law, now wouldn't it?
Edit: I didn't clearly read your post. No I am not the one saying that international law should bow to the US because the US has the most guns. I'm saying that the US should ignore the UN because the UN is not concerned with protecting American lives.
nihilistic
Intergalatic Delivery Boy
Plastic, you just dont get it do you? 1441 affirms the previous resolutions as their validity to the first Gulf War.
If your argument is true, then the US practically still has "UN Authorization" to annex any nation that UN has given the US approval of annexation before. I think I do not need to explain how wrong that can be.
And as I siad, quoted, numerous times before, all resolutions authorizing force would have nullified by 1441 anyway:
From resolution 1441:
Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,
In a sense, you can say that this statement in 1441 amounts to a cease-fire.
Also, if you just keep on posting completely fallacious statements as these:
Don't be surprised when people decides to either to ignore you, flame you, or just refer you to this link: http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame78.html
If your argument is true, then the US practically still has "UN Authorization" to annex any nation that UN has given the US approval of annexation before. I think I do not need to explain how wrong that can be.
And as I siad, quoted, numerous times before, all resolutions authorizing force would have nullified by 1441 anyway:
From resolution 1441:
Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,
In a sense, you can say that this statement in 1441 amounts to a cease-fire.
Also, if you just keep on posting completely fallacious statements as these:
Don't be surprised when people decides to either to ignore you, flame you, or just refer you to this link: http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame78.html
nihilistic
Intergalatic Delivery Boy
While it is inconceivable for everybody to learn C, and VB, it is still advisable that all computer users have a basic knowledge of the file storage architecture and graphic interface norms of the computer he/she is using. Similarly, the UN resolutiosn are neither written in legalese nor 5000 pages long. Therefore, intelligent people should be able to discuss it without much training in law.
You know what? This conversations ends here. I have already made my point and I will no longer post under this thread. I am too tired to continue this now pointless debate. I have problem sets to do.
etj4Eagle
ACME Salesman
Plastic is right in that Saddam declared a resumption of hostilities between Iraq and every coalition partner of the first gulf war 45 days after the cease fire agreement (that was the deadline for him to disarm). Since then all countries have been technically in a state of hostility, however they have refrained from resuming activie military actions to now.
The current military actions are a simple result of the US saying we aren't going to wait anymore for you to come into compliance with our cease fire agreement. And we additionally feel that the non-compliance is large enough to justify a full resumption of active hostilities. This is the same logic that gave Clinton the right to lob cruise missiles into Iraq when they were obstructing the weapon's inspectors.
Of course this is not to say that the UN ever gave legitamacy for these conditions to be enforced. An argument can be made that coalition forces were only authorized to remove Saddam from Kuwait. In which case all coalition forces (which does include France since they were part of that first coalition) violated the UN resolution when the continued the war following the moment the last Iraqi soldier stepped over the line and left Kuwait.
However, the UN is passing a resolution codifying the cease fire agreement would seem to me to have sanctified this expansion of the original madate. Otherwise why did they allow further restriction to be placed on Iraq?
Of course that is a moot point since the countries that be do recognize that Iraq is required to abide by the cease fire agreement. And by recognizing the legality of Iraq being held to its cease fire agreement they also are forced to recognize that this is not a second gulf war, but just the first war resumed in full force after a 12 year break for diplomacy.
You may find it silly that a violation of cease fire terms can allow a full return to war, but it is true. The actual results just depend on how the other side decides to respond. Following the cease fire from the initial set of hostilities an Iraqi unit attack a returning unit of US forces. This violated the cease fire and as a result the US attacked and whiped out that Iraqi unit.
This was seen not as an attempt via the upper leadership to violate the terms of the cease fire, but just an isolated action, which is why only that unit was attacked and a full resumption of military action did not occur.
Of course with this basis for military action, one might wonder what meaning did 1441 have at all. Well in it the UN confirmed the US assertion that Iraq was in breach of its cease fire agreement and consequently Iraq and all coalition partners (including France) were still in a technical state of war with Iraq. (I am assuming that the same cease fire agreement was agreed to by all the other coalition partners. It is possible that France issued their own cease fire declaration to Iraq: stay out of Kuwait and we won't attack any more).
Of course the great (or more accurately terrible) thing about International agreements like 1441 is that they are kept purposely vague so that both sides can claim they got all their objectives. And unless you understand the actual behind the scenes implied agreements you don't know what these agreements really mean. Things would be so much easier if these things were clear and simple, not filled with the hidden meanings and vagueness that is required to get them passed.
The current military actions are a simple result of the US saying we aren't going to wait anymore for you to come into compliance with our cease fire agreement. And we additionally feel that the non-compliance is large enough to justify a full resumption of active hostilities. This is the same logic that gave Clinton the right to lob cruise missiles into Iraq when they were obstructing the weapon's inspectors.
Of course this is not to say that the UN ever gave legitamacy for these conditions to be enforced. An argument can be made that coalition forces were only authorized to remove Saddam from Kuwait. In which case all coalition forces (which does include France since they were part of that first coalition) violated the UN resolution when the continued the war following the moment the last Iraqi soldier stepped over the line and left Kuwait.
However, the UN is passing a resolution codifying the cease fire agreement would seem to me to have sanctified this expansion of the original madate. Otherwise why did they allow further restriction to be placed on Iraq?
Of course that is a moot point since the countries that be do recognize that Iraq is required to abide by the cease fire agreement. And by recognizing the legality of Iraq being held to its cease fire agreement they also are forced to recognize that this is not a second gulf war, but just the first war resumed in full force after a 12 year break for diplomacy.
You may find it silly that a violation of cease fire terms can allow a full return to war, but it is true. The actual results just depend on how the other side decides to respond. Following the cease fire from the initial set of hostilities an Iraqi unit attack a returning unit of US forces. This violated the cease fire and as a result the US attacked and whiped out that Iraqi unit.
This was seen not as an attempt via the upper leadership to violate the terms of the cease fire, but just an isolated action, which is why only that unit was attacked and a full resumption of military action did not occur.
Of course with this basis for military action, one might wonder what meaning did 1441 have at all. Well in it the UN confirmed the US assertion that Iraq was in breach of its cease fire agreement and consequently Iraq and all coalition partners (including France) were still in a technical state of war with Iraq. (I am assuming that the same cease fire agreement was agreed to by all the other coalition partners. It is possible that France issued their own cease fire declaration to Iraq: stay out of Kuwait and we won't attack any more).
Of course the great (or more accurately terrible) thing about International agreements like 1441 is that they are kept purposely vague so that both sides can claim they got all their objectives. And unless you understand the actual behind the scenes implied agreements you don't know what these agreements really mean. Things would be so much easier if these things were clear and simple, not filled with the hidden meanings and vagueness that is required to get them passed.
Similar threads
