It is most clear that the USA will not get the 9 votes needed. So do you think it is worth while to go to the UN for assistance and talk to each country individiually or keep talking to the UN

yes, becaise to do otherwise is a violation of th UN charter, which under article six, clause two of the constitution any treaties ratified by congress is US law. the UN charter is one such treaty.

Secretary-General Kofi Annan has said an attack on Iraq would be a violation of the UN charter

but other countries such as iraq violate the charter

Nope

Go it alone

If the UN members aren't swayed by the findings of the banned bombs, then i say we declare the Security Counsil irrealivent & go it alone or with whoever wants to play ball with us

unabomber Posted on Mar 11 2003, 05:57 AM


What about the violations saddam has committed?

UN Sanctions violations
Resolution 1441 violations
Human Rights Violations

The UN, not wanting to face the fact that we need to toast Saddam's hide, needs to show that it ain't lazy & get to work or we will rent out the UN building to
Cantor-Fitzgearld as office space

The UN is beginning to look more and more like the old League of Nations; nothing more than an ineffectual debating society.

To tell you the truth, I'm not even sure we should remain a member of the UN, or of NATO either, the original purpose of which expired with the old Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact.

Do two wrongs make a right?

Does America want to base its actions upon the same moral standards as Iraq?

Juber3



GoAmerica



Do you really judge your selves by the standard of Saddam Hussein?

Of course the USA should go to the UN. Otherwise what is the point of being a member of the UN if your just going to ignore it? Either play by the rules or get off the field!

Actually i am agreeing with Izdaari and JonBon the UN is more like an adult debating society rathjer than the UN. The debates are always something stupid. I think they should Nullify 1441 and just go to war now as we can decide, at this evry moment

NATO we can stay with because at least they talked about assisting in an Iraq war whereas the UN just talks about giving Saddam more time even though they found a violation yesterday (banned bombs)

GA: You've been arguing the same paradox for weeks now. If the UN is irrelevant, then so are Iraq's violations of its resolutions. On one hand, you're saying that the United Nations is so obviously irrelevant that it should be consigned to the scrap heap of history. On the other hand, you're arguing that the resolutions of this useless, outmoded body are sacrosanct and that their violation justifies acting without the cooperation or blessing of that body to annihilate hundreds of thousands of people and forcibly remove a sovereign head of stae.

So, which is it? If the UN is relevant, then we should adhere to its recommendations and decisions - absolutely. If the UN is not relevant, then we have no justifiable reason on God's earth to take any action against Iraq. Surely you're not arguing that the UN is relevant if and only if it serves the special interests of the foreign policy of the administration of a single member state - us - and irrelevant when it fails to follow our orders, are you? If so, your argument crosses from being nonsensical into being hypocritical and autocratic. And that argument does indeed render the UN irrelevant - because we have made it so.

I've got to agree with Wertz on this one. How can the U.S. legally go to war with Iraq under the premisce of U.N. resolutions without actually consulting the U.N. and coming to a positive agreement about war with the U.N.?

If the U.S. wants to go to war without the U.N.'s blessing, so be it, but then the U.S. is going to have to come up with another reason to go to war with Iraq besides the violation of U.N. resolutions.

I think the US needs no further action on the part of the UN to stay within the charter. Resolution 1441 is still in play.

I think GA is saying that the UN does not act, so why bother asking them for permission to go to war. In which case, I would have to agree, the UN is in a corrupt state right now.

CP

The thing I don't understand, and possibly never will, is the UN's seeming inability or collective will to enforce it's resolutions.

Time and again I see member nations acting in behalf of their own best interests, but when the US does there is international outcry. I feel it's time to cut our losses, we've gone to the UN again and again only to find a circle of gossipy old ladies uninterested in backing up their strong words with consequences.


I agree, lets drop the party line on sanctions and enforce the terms of the 1991 cease fire agreement between the US and Iraq. The UN may get a case of the vapors over it, but historical (and possibly legal) precedence will be on our side.

Resolution 1441 does not authorise the use of military force



I don't see how the UN can described as corrupt. Ineffective, yes, but corrupt?

Does any one have a link for resolution 1441?

1441 - full text


Can I also just point out to those of you who keep insisting the UN 'does not act' that between June 1948 and July 2000, there have actually been 49 United Nations peace keeping missions.

With the French dealing with Iraq, threating countries that disagree with them that they won't be voted into the EU and Germany and Russia trading with SH, it is very corrupt.

CP

Geesh.. Everyone makes it so complicated to understand a simple issue.

China, France and Russia all have shares of Iraqi oil, ( at least if the sanctions were to ever be lifted )
US and UK do not. Germany just doesn't want a war that isn't justified ( guess all the previous wars taught them a few things )

USA has already admitted they plan on using oil to pay for the war:

"INSKEEP: US officials insist that they are not thinking in commercial terms. When Secretary of State Powell spoke to reporters this week, he said Iraq's oil will not be exploited for the United States' own purposes, but after Powell spoke, a State Department official added to that statement. Though no decisions have been made, the official says it might be deemed to be in the Iraqi people's interest to use oil money to pay for peacekeeping troops and other costs associated with a US-led takeover. "

Source:http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/transcripts/2003/jan/030125.inskeep.html


Thus we have the dividing line in the UN, and the motive? OIL

Those who don't believe me? Search the net and find evidence that points to that motive and then try to debunk it. I have... its rather disheatening.

So in a way your statement is correct. The UN is corrupt, but so is everyone else.

Mr. President, Call the Vote and Walk Away by Charles Krauthammer.

I agree with Krauthammer. No further comment.

From an Iraqi standpoint, if Saddam is deposed, what would be wrong with helping foot the bill for their liberation?

The US in the past has tried the avenue of having Iraqi nationals start a rebellion against Saddam. Each time, these have failed and the leadership has been executed. So we have moved away from the internal revolution idea and have finally decided to overtyly remove Saddam.

Iraq is a wealthy nation, with vast resources (of oil, mainly). I don't see the problem with having them bear some of the costs of their liberation.

The UN, at the moment, is a bottomless mire that the US must try to cross. France has already vowed to veto ANY resolution that calls for action, even if it has a more reasonable timetable than GWB's March 17th deadline. The UK recently drafted a plan, and France said it would veto it before even looking at the plan. That to me is wrong.

What the US should do, is draft a resolution stating that Iraq is in violation of 1441. I think that type of resolution would tell us EXACTLY where each member stands as far as Iraq, since even Hans Blix has never said that Iraq has complied with 1441 (only that they are making progress and that they need continued and more enthusiastic cooperation from Iraq).

The fact underlying everything is that Iraq is NOT in compliance with 1441. It is a simple conclusion to come to. Once the US has a resolution stating Iraq's non-compliance with 1441, THEN they can move ahead to consequences (which, I think should not be mentioned at all in the first resolution.)

It may very well be that certain nations agree that Iraq is in non-compliance, but do not agree with the enforcement idea. By splitting these two issues, the US should be able to garner more support for its position.

Abput Germany, Germany doesn't want a war that will incriminate them. THey've sold SH nuclear reacotrs and it wouldn't look good if the US found a nuke with a German flag on it .

CP

This was Krauthammer's suggestion: "The Security Council finds Iraq in violation of Resolution 1441, which demanded 'full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions.' "

Once we have that, nothing more is necessary. And if they won't go along with even that, they have no cover.

"If the one-line resolution passes, the violation triggers 1441, which triggers the original resolutions ending the Gulf War. If it fails, you've exposed the United Nations for what it is: the League of Nations, empty, cynical and mendacious. Mr. President: Call the vote and walk away."

Point to Krauthammer.

BTW, he stole all my best ideas, I think he has my brain bugged.

The whole reason why UNSCOM was scrapped and UNMOVIC took its place was because it was corrupt. Many reports blanketing the internet state UNSCOM inspectors were spying for the US, the former UN weapon inspector team leader Scott Ritter admits it. In an MSNBC article even Bill Clinton admits it. And that was the reason the UN weapon inspectors were first kicked out of the country.

UNMOVIC, as far we know, is not.

The US must hate not having an insider this time.

And honestly what is the UN asking for? More time. Hans Blix stated it would take "months" not years to determine if Iraq has fully disarmed or not, so why not let him and the team do thier job? And if the US finds any incriminating evidence ( instead of false documents and accusations with no backing ) and presents it to the weapons inspectors and they find something then it would prove Iraq is hiding weapons. The world needs to see this proof before support will be given. So, why not find ways to get this proof?

I mean let's be honest here. So far the proof US has been given is a joke.

1. BBC and freelance reporters went to the locations on the poison factories on the satellite imagery Powell presented and found nothing. Blix debunked most of the rest of it.

2. The hard evidence that proved that Iraq was importing uranium for WMD has been deemed a fake.

3. Bush has accused Saddam publicly of having and hiding WMD, yet has not shown one iota of his proof to the UN.

4. North Korea is threatening to nuke the US told them they desperately want to talk to them regarding a contract stating Bush will NOT ATTACK them next! ( That's how afraid they are of being next on the list. ) and yet US is ignoring any possiblity of direct talks.

5. The weapon inspectors have not been blocked one single time, U2 spyplanes are allowed, over 181 inspectors are combing the country, Iraq is still presenting new information almost daily, and even Blix has stated Iraq is begginning to comply, and yet Bush is still singing that same old song "not complying."

6. Bush has stated over and over again that we don't need approval of the world to do whatever we want, which just seems like a huge amount of arrogance.

7. Tom Daschle, and other democrats who were originally supporting this war effort have turned against the president stating he's been reckless in foreign affairs insulting old allies and just making a fool of the US.

8. Most of the neighboring countries surrounding Iraq do not fear Saddam or worry about him using WMD on them.

This is what the world is seeing. This is why there is very little world support on the possible war. This is why world opinion on USA is at an all time low. Really, before USA reacts they need to clean up their reptuation a little.

Yes it is true Iraq in the past did violate some resolutions ( i won't say 17 because that's not even close to the truth ) but if they are cooperating now don't you think we should see where this goes? And if months go by and Blix is frustrated because Iraq is not complying again THEN US will get UN backing, or at least be more justified in going to war.

What about the anthrax and mustard gas, and other biological weapons that he shouldn't have, do they no count or something?

CP

No need

Saddam proved Bush was right:

Undeclared Chemical Warheads found

Banned Bombs found

As I said, I guess those don't count right ?

CP

Another insightful contribution. Try to ADD something to the debate instead of just patting people on the back...

Your two links offer no proof of the existence of WMD GoAmerica. The first article, which is two months old, only documents the existence of empty warheads. There MAY be chemical agents in storage which they were to be used for, but there is still no evidence of this whatsoever.

The second link doesn't establish that the bomblets found are banned by the terms of any UN resolutions and doesn't offer any evidence of WMD either.

Gee whiz! The guy proved my point and I agreed with him, what was I thinking!

CP

or there are. You see, there is still the little matter of the VX & Anthrax. Iraq gave info on their location buit the UN has yet to find them...why?

Unless you believe reports like these:

Iraq says VX & Anthrax Destroyed

Blix would believe them too




No it doesn't prove the existence of WMD....but it proves saddam lied AGAIN, when he said he had gotten rid of EVERYTHING

From the article:



link



And....



You tell me

they gave the inspectors info on where these were DUMPED. the inspectors have taken soil samples of these locations, and are going to check for the trace elements indicating VX and anthrax, which would PROOVE Iraq destroyed them.

people keep saying Iraq should present the weapons, yet how could they if they were destroyed?

regarding the "bomblets": the first sentence says: "THE DISCLOSURE, if verified..." meaning it still had not been proven these were weapons that were usable. and weren't they buried out in the sand? someway to store weapons!

and the "chemical warheads": they were empty. they had NEVER been used with chemical weapons, which is obvious when you see inspectors handling them without ANY protective gear. they could just as easily been filled with explosives (to make them go boom)

also, Ritter claims 90-95% of Iraqs weapons had been destroyed. this leaves 5-10%. America supposedly destroyed several labs during the first gulf war (what caused gulf war syndrome was supposedly being downwind from these labs) this could account for the "missing" 5-10% of WMDs. all "intelligence" the US has given the inspectors has been, according to the inspectors, worthless garbage.

this whole thing is like this: the BATF (bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms) shows up at my house saying "we know you have an arsenal hidden in your house, we're here to find it" I say, "okay you can search my house, you won't find anything" they proceed to search my house, up and down, left and right, and inside out. they find nothing, yet insist I have an arsenal and are going to arrest me anyway.

It is if you want to hide the weapons from someone

bomber, you fail to understand what the inspections were meant to do. Their job is not to find the weapons, it is to verify that they are no longer there by examining the proof offered by Iraq that they destroyed them. That could/should have been done in the first 30 days of this fiasco.

Saddam has managed to play this out for time. Time to plan his strategy and put it in place. And now that his 'tacit' ally, France, has gone over the edge he can rest assured that he no longer has to co-operate, except for show. Which is all he has done anyway.

We should not go back to the UN. Hopefully we are already working for an alternative to the UN once this is over.

If it were up to me I would have given the 'three day warning' yesterday and then launched the attack during Sunday's emergency summit. And don't cry foul, we're going to war and we're going there to win. As quickly as we can.

Okay, help me out here, because there are some inconsistencies that I just can't work out.

1. The U.S. initially went in with a coalition of other U.N. member states to liberate Kuwait with the blessing of a U.N. resolution.

2. The Cease-fire was granted by a U.N. resolution with conditions that must be met by Saddam Hussain. They were outlined in clear detail in Resolution 687, which does, indeed, place the burden of proof on Iraq.

3. The U.N., at this point, agrees that, with the knowledge that they currently have, Saddam Hussain has not yet fully complied with the resolutions to disarm, and they have ordered the inspectors in to determine precisely whether or not those conditions have been met. The inspectors claim that they need more time to determine this...months not years. Additionally, as I understand it, Resolution 1441 is a good will resolution giving Iraq one last chance to disarm, and it sets a timetable from November 8, 2002...45 days from that date to resume inspections...60 days from that point for the inspectors to update. It seems to me that at the end of February a new resolution should have been drafted to allot the inspectors a specific amount of additional time to complete their work, which is reasonable since they haven't been in Iraq for such an extended period of time. In order for these resolutions to work, though, they do, IMO, need a timeline just like any other contract, and if the dates need to be modified accordingly, so be it.

5. I understand that this is a cease-fire, and that any war would be a resumption of the original action based on Iraq’s non-compliance, but what I don't understand is how it would be legal for the U.S. to go in alone without the U.N.'s blessing, since it is a U.N. action that is being resumed. It seems to me that without that blessing, the U.S. will be in violation of the U.N. Charter, which, as I understand it, is legally binding for as long as we are a part of that treaty.



We do have the authority, constitutionally to go to war on our own, but our government’s role is to provide for the common defense, and we have not been invaded by Iraq. A pre-emptive strike because of what Iraq might do just doesn’t cut it constitutionally, IMO.

Given this data, I definitely think that we should be working through the U.N. to resolve this issue. Anything else is unconstitutional by U.S. standards and illegal by the standards of international law.

If we are not willing to work with the U.N. than we should pull out altogether (which I’m not personally advocating), but then we should also wash our hands of Iraq at the same time unless we actually have positive data that PROVES that Iraq is actively planning to attack the United States or U.S. interests overseas. Only then, will the U.S. be justified in taking action against Iraq based on providing for the common defense.

Edited to fix a grammatical error.

Musing said

I believe the alternative to that would be the impossible dream of American hegemony where no one country or group of countries existed to counter our vision of the proper world order backed by the most powerful military and economic arsenal in the world.

Cyan, well said!

Cyan said:


The administration never planned on respecting what the U.N. might say or do unless it was in our favor. As I see it, and as I've already fussed about on other threats, we're undermining the U.N. more than we'd like to claim Iraq is. Simply put, to refrain from ranting, I don't think we ever should have gone to the U.N. on this matter. Our actions were going to bring resentment and protest from the international community either way and all we've truly accomplished is to undermine the U.N. to the extent that we now threaten it's very existence (and thereby any chance at being allowed to work), deeming it an irrelevant body.

The US is not undermining the UN. The cynical French machinations aimed at preventing the Security Council from following through on its own resolutions are the undermining factor. These machinations have shown conclusively that the UN is incapable of acting decisively-despite the lip service paid to the idea of consequences. Iraq's transparent "cooperation" with inspectors is merely the grand strategic version of a game of chicken. SH has seen that he can count on the French and Russians to oppose the implementation in truth of the resolutions. The argument that the inspectors need a couple more months is a transparent delaying tactic. In a few months, weather conditions make the prospect of military action far more dangerous, and the players are fully aware of it. So the few months automatically becomes a year. Next year (assuming the delays continue) the argument will be "we didn't find anything, so it must not be there, and no action is necessary.' Those types of arguments will continue until the next 9/11. Then, the very people opposing war now will scream that we missed our chance to prevent the attack.

The bottom line is that the UN was given the opportunity to prevent its own marginalization, and has failed to do so-just as iraq was given one last chance to comply with agreements it made and subsequently ignored.

actually america has been undermining the security council for a while. we have used our veto power to block something like 28 resolutions (these are the ones the DID block, Israel is also currently in violation of 32 (possibly more) UN resolutions) on israel. we have NO room to talk about the french vetoing any Iraqi resolution that comes through. they have an economic interest in Iraq, as does russia and china (if sanctions were ever lifted, which would HAVE to happen if it is found SH has disarmed) america and britain are attempting to steal the rights to develop the oil fields (at least Iraq would get a majority of the money, where as america already plans on using money gained from oil to pay the war)

some liberation, we are going to make them pay to be freed. since when have we charged fees for liberation? remember when europe was liberated? we didn't ask them to foot part of the bill for WW2. no, we dumped millions into europe to rebuild it.

and if you believe america will hold the oil in trust for the Iraqi's, I got a bridge in brooklyn I want to sell you, cheap.

Proof? France, Russia & China have their own reasons to play the pacifists...the oil deals. The U.S. & U.K. could care less about knocking those deals out because we believe in free trading & all that good stuff. The only reason the U.S. & U.K. want to take out Saddam & take the fields are to get more than what we are getting now. Saddam cranks out enough oil to satisfy all who are involved in the oil-for-food program set up by the UN

Quote edited for length

I won't debate the U.S. undermining the U.N. here, but I would refer you, Bacchus, to another thread I started just the other day: United Hypocrisy?
You say "the UN was given the opportunity to prevent its own marginalization, and has failed to do so," when the we, along with other nations (the "cynical French" and Iraq included), have marginalized the United Nations from the very beginning.

I feel the other thread offers ample support for this assertion and would reiterate for this post that I don't feel the U.S. should have gone to the U.N. just to take them to the cleaners, undermining the future role of the international body in international accords and conflicts.

This is all fine and good, but how does it address Juber's question: Should the US go to the UN?

Regardless of whether the UN is being undermined or is irrelevant or not, I don't see how the US has legal grounds for a war with Iraq without the UN's blessing. Can anyone provide information to the contrary?

What reason would the US have for attacking Iraq on its own?

What I'm saying in regards to the undermining, Cyan, is that we really shouldn't have gone to the United Nations when it appears we were going to move forward with our war plans regardless of what the council concluded.

As far as the second part, I've addressed on other threads dealing with Iraq directly why the U.S. would go to war with Iraq alone -- it's part of our National Security Strategy, drafted from the PNAC report I've mentioned too many times to count (sorry!)

At any rate... I feel that our going to the U.N. was more harm than good. The U.N. had nothing to gain by sanctioning a war with Iraq and everything to lose by abstaining. If they agree with us, they're just doing their jobs... no reason for applause. But when they refrain from engaging in a (currently) unjustifiable war, then they have the lone super power and its "Coalition of the Willing" declaring it irrelevant and threatening to find some ambiguous new international body to consult.

Our going to the U.N. was an empty gesture and has done nothing but sling mud upon the organization's noble intentions when it was completely unnecessary.

In some respects I agree with you abs. We shouldn't have gone in the first place. We didn't need to go to 'get authorization'.

Colin Powell appears to have convinced Pres Bush that getting the backing of the UN would be in our best interests and that he could deliver the votes. He couldn't pull it off and so we fall back to the President's original position. Having the time to get the military in place while the UN dallied was surely a factor also.

I don't believe there can ever be a single global org that works. There are just too many variables, too many self-interests (rightfully so).

I agree with ABS too to a point
I think we went to UN even though we were going to go ahead with our war plans anyway to humor our allies.



So sadly true MM my friend

Alas, we should not stop trying to find one that works

Going to the UN had nothing to do with the legality of the impending war. The United States has repeatedly asserted that under the self-defense clause in the UN Charter, it is free to act at any time that it deems necessary. The position of the United States is also that existing resolutions concerning Iraq already authorize the use of force. The only reason that we have gone through this entire charade is to provide political cover for Tony Blair, who faces severe opposition at home for his support of the US.

Right, but then we have our own constitution to contend with. It is the US government's role to provide for the common defense of the United States, but do we have a sufficient amount of data to prove that Iraq is an immediate threat to the US? Would it be constitutional for us to act on our own?



I think that's arguable. According the resolutions, the cease-fire is still in effect, and Resolution 1441 does give Iraq one last chance to comply, hence the return of the inspectors. If the inspectors say that they haven't been able to complete their task, and they are requesting more time, it seems to me that another resolution is necessary to resolve that issue before further action can be taken.

I'm not putting a judgement on whether or not the UN has handled the situation effectively. I'm merely discussing whether or not it would be legal for the US to take the situation into their own hands. Would it have been legal for the US to go into Iraq in the first place during Desert Storm had it not been for the blessing of the UN?

Yes because Iraq had no right then to invade Kuwait, so with or without the blessings of the UN, it would have been legal because Iraq was invading the soverignty of the nation of Kuwait for his own personal reasons: Oil.

Saddam needed money because the Iran-Iraq war had crippled the economic stability of Iraq & Iraq felt that Kuwait was giving too much oil (or whatever) to the West, so he decided to invade for the oil & control it

Cyan, I think that Constitutional precedent is against you here. The Government is to provide for the common defense, and in order to do so there is a division of powers. The President is the Commander in Chief of the military, and he has the explicit responsibility for deciding when the common defense is threatened and for taking action. The Congress holds a check on this Presidential power through its control of the budget. Congress has the responsibility to refuse funding for actions that it feels are inconsistent with Constitutional aims. We have acted in the past on several issues that didn't directly affect the US mainland. Gulf War I is a prime example, as is, arguably, WWI and the European theater of WWII.

You ask, do we have information proving that Iraq is a clear and present danger to the common defense of the US? I honestly don't know. I don't have a security clearance (well actually I do, but it doesn't apply to foreign intelligence). However, in the age of WMD, and in light of Hussein's demonstrated willingness to use them, can we take the risk of waiting to find out?

Yes, the cease-fire is still technically in effect. However, the cease-fire was explicity contingent upon Iraq's disarmament and unconditional cooperation with inspectors. Can even the most dovish observer honestly claim that Iraq has unconditionally cooperated? Therefore, the cease-fire is null and void, and a state of war still technically exists.

Whether the inspectors desire more time is to my mind irrelevant. 1441 demanded (again) immediate, unconditional cooperation from Iraq. Iraq publicly agreed to unconditionally accept 1441. Yet even Dr. Blix admits that Iraq has failed to unconditionally and immediately cooperate, so it stands yet again in breach of its obligations.

Would it be legal for the US to go in alone now? Yes, it would. The resolutions currently in force give it all the justification it needs, from a UN standpoint. No resolution forbids the use of force in enforcing the resolutions.

Finally, would it have been legal for the US to have embarked upon Gulf War I absent UN authority? Of course it would have. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are US allies (for better or worse) who were overrun and threatened by a foreign hostile nation. Under the Self-Defense clause a nation is permitted to enlist aid from others in meeting a foreign threat. Recall that both Saudi Arabia and Kuwait explicitly requested US aid. In fact, it is my opinion that enlisting the approval of the UN was a grevious strategic error from the standpoint of the foreign policy of the US. Because of the UN oversight, Saddam was permitted to escape his impending overthrow.