The US, The UN and Iraq

My entire hopes are on a succesful handling of the exiling of Saddam per the "Arab Coalition"

http://www.msnbc.com/news/862181.asp?vts=012320031200

Bill, I am confident you have arrived at your point of view by means both honorable and informed. I respect you, and your position. I cannot in conscience share your opinion.

edited due to having originally typed the word "View" with an incorrect number of "M"s


timber

timber, Thanks, I know that, and double thanks for reinterating it. But the world will be better if my hopes are fulfilled.

Timber

Thanks for the text of the UN resolution---I confess, I had not read it before.

We have been hearing about para 4 but now we can read it for effect----I wonder if anyone will.

We will be able to determine Blix's gender and character once and for all when we see his wording regarding paragraph 4.

perception, Paragraph 4 and Paragraph 13 are the meat of the matter, IMO. It is my impression many who debate The Resolution are unaware of the specific requirements and pronouncements contained therein. That is just my impression, others may read it differently than do I. On the other hand, I have a fair vocabulary and some experience with critical, forensic reading. I believe those who object to my position to be in error as to interpretation of The Resolution. To me, the article is unequivocal in its entirety.



timber

4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

Timber, do you interpret that as meaning the Council authorizes the use of force, without further action by the Council? I don't ask that to start an argument, i am interested in how you read this, as many in the international community contend that a further resolution of the Council would be required to authorize military action.

Main Entry: un·equiv·o·cal
Pronunciation: "&n-i-'kwi-v&-k&l
Function: adjective
Date: 1784
1 : leaving no doubt : CLEAR, UNAMBIGUOUS
2 : UNQUESTIONABLE <production of unequivocal masterpieces -- Carole Cook>

Setanta, I read:
as clearly establishing a a "Final Opportunity". I do not interprate "Final opportunty" to infer "a promise to continue further consideration".



timber

timber, what do you interperate it as meaning?

Thanks, Boss, i was interested in how you interpret that. As you know, i am opposed to the war. That does not prevent me from recognizing the disingenuous positions of other parties, and the saddly unrealistic idealism of many anti-war people, however. I oppose this war with a will, and i also interpret this resolution as you do--that, god forbid, if the Shrub decides to go in, he will have a "legal" case, at least . . . although i don't think that will count for much in the balance of world opinion.

The key words in paragraph 4 are: "false statements and omissions in decalarations shall constitute further material breach"

The world has solid evidence of the omissions in the declaration already made by Iraq.

I also am interested in Timbers interpretation of whether there is a requirement for a second resolution based on the wording of the first resolution.

France Germany Russia China (3 permanent members of the security council) are effectively telling the US to get stuffed.

I've lost count of the times the UK govt says war is not imminent nor inevitable. I think we could still pull out of this.

Then it really would be USA + Israel v Iraq + Rest of World. This is madness.

Saddam is not going to run away. You're going to have to fight all the way into central Baghdad. If you use nuclear weapons then its only a matter of time before the Muslim world replies in kind. (But without the warning).

4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

Do you really think France and Russia will risk being on the sidelines when the oil wells are divided up.

I do not see any provision of UNR 1441 imposing requirement for subsequent resolution. I read it as "Put up or shut up".

I reiterate I am opposed to war on principle. Been there, done that, didn't like it one bit (well, causing real big explosions was sort of entertaining, but I sure didn't enjoy it when The Other Guy foucussed any-sized explosions on my particular area). I am really upset with folks who insist on making war necessary. War is implicit admission of the failure of reason. Reasonable folks don't want to go to war. Unreasonable people count on the reluctance of reasonable people to forcibly oppose their depradations.



timber

Timber

I really like that last sentence-----you are downright clever.

Timber

What your real conclusion is: "You cannot reason with unreasonable people" why can't everyone recognize this unchanging fact?

I couldn't agree more! Why indeed?

Perception.

Don't know about France, but Saddam has recently signed a huge oil deal with Russia. Its partly because countries with oil contracts with Iraq fear any new pro American administration in Baghdad will renege on these deals and only work with American oil companies that they oppose war. I dont expect America to treat fairly even with its only ally Britain, and neither does Lord Browne CEO of British Petroleum.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2688401.stm