military action against Libya

United Nations Security Council and the Iraq War
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Iraq War
Colin Powell holding a model vial of anthrax while giving a presentation to the United Nations Security Council.

In March 2003 the United States government announced that "diplomacy has failed" and that it would proceed with a "coalition of the willing" to rid Iraq under Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction the U.S. insisted it possessed. The 2003 invasion of Iraq began a few days later.

Prior to this decision, there had been much diplomacy and debate amongst the members of the United Nations Security Council over how to deal with the situation. This article examines the positions of these states as they changed during 2002-2003.

Prior to 2002, the Security Council had passed 16 resolutions on Iraq. In 2002, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441.

In 2003, the governments of the U.S., Britain, and Spain proposed another resolution on Iraq, which they called the "eighteenth resolution" and others called the "second resolution." This proposed resolution was subsequently withdrawn when it became clear that several permanent members of the Council would cast no votes on any new resolution, thereby vetoing it. [1] Had that occurred, it would have become even more difficult for those wishing to invade Iraq to argue that the Council had authorized the subsequent invasion. Regardless of the threatened or likely vetoes, it seems that the coalition at no time was assured any more than four affirmative votes in the Council—the U.S., Britain, Spain, and Bulgaria—well short of the requirement for nine affirmative votes.[2]

On September 16, 2004 Secretary-General of the United Nations Kofi Annan, speaking on the invasion, said, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN Charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."

Quote:

I would be willing to bet that most of those trying to save the world from Gadaffi want to save the oil there for themselves.

I dont claim to know the real reason, but the claimed reason is that we are fighting on the side of the libyan people against Gadaffi. It gets very interesting though to watch the gymnastics required to deal with the fact that so many of the libyan people support Gadaffi enough to be willing to die defending his regime. The approach of choice is to only quote the rebels, and to allege that all those fighting for the other side are defective. As usual, our journalists flirt with gross incompetence and degrading their work into propaganda...

I am a neo-con, I'm all in favor of a righteous American military coming to the rescue of benighted Wogs.

However...

Before invading Iraq, Bush sought and obtained the approval of Congress. Then he went on to secure the approval if the UN, and when he finally did invade Iraq he did so with a coalition that was approx 3 times the size of Obama's Libyan crowd.

Obama hasn't even given a nod to congress and yet the MSM couldn't care less.

Imagine if Bush tried to ignore congress.

Additionally, Obama is desperately trying to transfer leadership of the kinetic military action in Libya to some other poor sotted nation.

So now we find ourselves in a world where France, not the US, is leading the West.

Some of you will find this all too perfect, but you will not ask yourselves why France and Britain are so ginned up to assume leadership.

There are rewards for being The Leader. The French and British know this.

Obama is perhaps the first American president who, not only, doesn't care whether or not we preserve our Big Dog status, but would like to see us cede it to another nation.

That will not fly with Americans, nor should it. We spend a **** load of tax money to sustain the Big Dog status, and we don't need or want a president that runs shy of such status.

This crap could and should kill him in his re-election efforts.

If this crisis hasn't shown what an inept and pitiful leader Obama is, then nothing short of Armageddon will.

If and when The Apocalypse comes and Obama is president, we can count on him to negotiate appeasement towards The Whore of Babylon.

Good grief but he is an ineffectual, abstract minded, putz!

France was still a member of NATO.

And French forces were still in the southwestern region of Germany, presumably would have been used in a NATO war.

To "stop the Russians", in Germany had been Belgian, British, Canadian, Danish, Netherlands and US-American troops besides the Germans.