Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea- Bush or Kerry?

I realize that we are supposed to stop something from the picture but I see the same posts concerning the same topics, I guess I interpreted the message wrong.

In light of that...

The reason John Kerry voted no on the 87 billion (right number?) for Iraq and Afghanistan was because of the thing about the bids and Haliburton that was included in the bill. a lot of times while a congressmen or senator likes a bill there are things included in it that would make it impossible for he/she to vote for it. Which is why Kerry was first going to vote for it and then not going to vote for as Cheney said in his speech.

(I don't have all the specifics but I am sure that it can be searched out by anyone that wants to)

As for the thing about bin laden family getting to get out of town fast, to me that only makes sense for safety reasons.

nimh wrote:

You havent replied what you would think if Russia and China together invoked a UN resolution as the legal ground for a war they together decided to wage on, say, Israel (or, I dunno, India)...

Show me the resolution that authorizes them to take such action. Thanks.

Scrat wrote:

nimh wrote:

You havent replied what you would think if Russia and China together invoked a UN resolution as the legal ground for a war they together decided to wage on, say, Israel (or, I dunno, India)...

Show me the resolution that authorizes them to take such action. Thanks.

You're missing the point.

The way I read the Iraq resolution, I dont see it authorizing such action either.

But according to you, your country's government and Britain's, it did.

Unfortunately, according to almost all the other governments with a seat in the Security Council, as well as the UN people themselves, it didn't.

So what you have is a United Nations resolution that proposes vaguely defined action in an unspecified future if the action it demands from a government is not taken. And two individual member states then deciding it means that they can undertake the action they think is necessary at the time they think it's necessary to - even though the United Nations themselves said they were interpreting the resolution wrongly.

Hence the comparison. There are many UN resolutions. A whole litany of resolutions concerns Israel, for one, that were all violated. What would you say if two individual member states (say, Russia and China) defined one of those resolutions to constitute a legitimation for their own military action of choice - when neither your government, nor the majority of Security Council governments, nor the head of the UN itself, agrees that it does?

Wouldn't you say - Russia and China cant suddenly decide on their own what a UN resolution means? Like, they can argue how they think it means what they say it does, but they cant claim to be the UN resolution's executors if the UN itself in majority disagrees with their interpretation?

And if you would, why is it suddenly different when its the US doing it?

nimh wrote:

Scrat wrote:

nimh wrote:

You havent replied what you would think if Russia and China together invoked a UN resolution as the legal ground for a war they together decided to wage on, say, Israel (or, I dunno, India)...

Show me the resolution that authorizes them to take such action. Thanks.

You're missing the point.

The way I read the Iraq resolution, I dont see it authorizing such action either.

But according to you, your country's government and Britain's, it did.

Unfortunately, according to almost all the other governments with a seat in the Security Council, as well as the UN people themselves, it didn't.

So what you have is a United Nations resolution that proposes vaguely defined action in an unspecified future if the action it demands from a government is not taken. And two individual member states then deciding it means that they can undertake the action they think is necessary at the time they think it's necessary to - even though the United Nations themselves said they were interpreting the resolution wrongly.

Hence the comparison. There are many UN resolutions. A whole litany of resolutions concerns Israel, for one, that were all violated. What would you say if two individual member states (say, Russia and China) defined one of those resolutions to constitute a legitimation for their own military action of choice - when neither your government, nor the majority of Security Council governments, nor the head of the UN itself, agrees that it does?

Wouldn't you say - Russia and China cant suddenly decide on their own what a UN resolution means? Like, they can argue how they think it means what they say it does, but they cant claim to be the UN resolution's executors if the UN itself in majority disagrees with their interpretation?

And if you would, why is it suddenly different when its the US doing it?

Great post, nimh.

I hope you, and others in the world "out there", realize that not all Americans agree with this bunch of buffoons who have managed to take control of our nation's policies.

In fact, I hope you realize that the number of people who feel as I do -- are substantial.

I can only hope we can prove that to you and the world by giving these fools the heave ho next Novemeber.

I believe the intent in 687 was to do just that, as Saddam needed to feel threatened in order to take it seriously.

Quote:

Recognizing the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

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,

Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,
...

Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,
Resolution 1441 (2002)

Now Frank and others may find room for France and others to dance around the very simple, very straightforward facts in evidence here, but no matter how fast they dance, the facts don't simply go away.

It seems very clear to me, as it should be to everyone who signed this resolution, that it acknowledges that the Gulf War ended in a state of CEASE FIRE, the maintainance of which required very specific actions be taken by Saddam Hussein, actions he has refused for 12 years to take.

It seems equally clear that this resolution reaffirms the language of resolution 687 which "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".

And lastly there is simply no denying that resolution 1441 is a "relevant [resolution] subsequent to resolution 660". This means--and if I can read this, surely those who signed it can--that the text of 1441 by referencing 687 and 660 clearly and explicitly authorizes the use of military action in this matter.

Thanks for posting [an extract from] the exact text here, that is very clarifying.

You call a number of things "clear" from this text. One thing that is not clear to me from this text is whether the resolution "authorized Member States" individually, or collectively, to "use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660".

What if the Member States disagree amongst each other what the "necessary means" are? Does it say anything about the right of one state to declare that to "uphold and implement" the resolution, it is now necessary to resort to the means of war, and act on that, even when the other Member States are in explicit disagreement about that conclusion?

Who does 1441 "explicitly authorize the use of military action in this matter" - "the Member States", surely, not any one Member State that ran out of patience?

"The Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution" - but at this moment, a majority in the Council does feel that Iraq is sufficiently accepting the provisions of that resolution to warrant the process of implementing it more time. So how can the US glean from this resolution that it has the right to end the ceasefire by itself?

the plain and simple fact is that France, Russia, and China simply would not sign onto any resolution that contained wording that caused war or invasion to automatically ensue upon non-compliance. And the same goes for other nations that were part of the Security Council at the time 1441 was passed.

[..] it is not up to you or to George Bush to decide if Iraq is complying or has complied with the provisions of 687 or 660. That is for the Security Council to decide -- which is what they would have done if Bush hadn't decided to withdraw the new resolution.

That, I believe is the key to most disagreements. While some (UN, weapons inspectors, France, Germany, me, and like-minded people) believe that the resolutions were generally complied with, certainly at least within the past few weeks, others (U.S., GB, Tresspasser and like-minded) will find the compliance to be non-existent or 'half-hearted' (whatever kind of animal that may be). That, in turn, is supposed to be enough to justify an intervention of one country by other individual countries. But if it indeed is enough, all the years i have studied international law were a waste of time, for i haven't encountered such logic anywhere there.

France was helping Saddam move his WMD's to Syria while stonewalling the US proposed resolution in the UN. That way France could come out smelling like a rose regardless of the actions of either Saddam or Bush. France had incentive, need and means to do this.

France was helping Saddam move his WMD's to Syria while stonewalling the US proposed resolution in the UN. That way France could come out smelling like a rose regardless of the actions of either Saddam or Bush. France had incentive, need and means to do this.

If the US backed down, France was in favor with Saddam. If the US invaded, France could then show the world they were right in objecting to US involvement. Especially if you consider the amount of French made military equipment that was moved out.

Scrat wrote:

I believe the intent in 687 was to do just that, as Saddam needed to feel threatened in order to take it seriously.

They key words here are "I believe".

McGentrix you're like the uninivited guest that barges into the party and pukes on the rug, you know that?