The US, UN & Iraq III

HofT

They were likely Canadian. That was a tough period for hockey stick exports and we were trying to make up lost ground. And of course, though this conversation overheard involved non-Americans, we'd likely be mistaken to assume such don't occur in boardrooms local. Perhaps it is time for Sean Penn to do a remake of Shaw's wonderful Major Barbara.

I think that the argument that Iraq's failure to comply with UN Resolutions is a weak one at best to justify a preemptive attack. How many countries in this world has not complied with UN Resolutions? Let us count the ways. c.i.

dafdaf, read UNSCR 660, 2Aug'90 , followed by UNSCRs 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 677, and 678, from 1990, then 686, and 687, from 1991. Iraq has not fulfilled the conditions. UNSCR 660 authorized armed intervention. UNSCR 687 spelled out the considitions attendent upon Iraq pursuant to the hostilities authorized by UNSCR 660 and reitterated and expanded upon by subsequent resolutions culminating in the Ceasefire. The 2003 Gulf War is nothing more than the Iraqi-chosen conclusion to the chain of events Iraq initiated with her invasion of Kuwait.

I just wanted to give an answer referring to International Law.
But when hearing that the USA detains children at Guantanamo Bay ....

(An aside:
this was very different more than hundred years ago:

"The Right Hon. the Attorney General
Castle
Dublin.
Sir,
I take leave to draw your attention to the fact, of which you are, no doubt, already aware, that a large number of Citizens of the United States have recently been arrested and thrown into prison, without sworn informations against them or the slightest allegation of their guilt as I am informed. ... ... ...

Complaint from American consul in Dublin

Daf -- and if they do, will it be like a class action suit and could we all join in?! Please?!

It has a bit to do with the US disregarding the UN charter. Relevant because of all those UN resolutions you like to point at while maintaining that they are also irrelevant.

And speaking of finding WMD's:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/wld/graphics/strategic_israel_dw.htm

Timber

You restate your opinion without addressing any of the questions I posed about it.

The references are always to the resolutions by number, listed as if mentioning their numbers alone makes them mean what the desired interpretation has them to mean. But does the sequence of resolutions really lead to the conclusion you present as fact, namely that "The 2003 Gulf War is nothing more than the Iraqi-chosen conclusion to the chain of events Iraq initiated with her invasion of Kuwait"? Many of those most intimately experienced in international law say, no. (I already posted names before, ranging from Justice Goldstone to former High Commissioner Robinson). Now I am no international law expert, but even I can see there's some basic incongruities in the interpretation of 1441 usually suggested to define the legal basis for this law.

As I am not an expert, I state my questions about them simply, though with an undertone of disbelief, as I did in the post above - who did these resolutions authorize to do what? I look at a text like that and just don't see what tress or asherman or you seem to suggest it says. Now I may well overlook a few things, but every time I post something along the lines of 'but look at this actual text, you say it means this but how can it, when it says here that x, y and z' and it yields a mere 'well, thats what it means, anyway', I get a little sad, feeling again that what I'm debating with is really just a statement of belief, however clothed in evocations of objective truth. And that's no use ... (Hey, should it just be that you don't want to respond to a post by me, I'm sure somebody else can rephrase the questions?)

i think its pretty much agreed that 1441 and resolutions preceeding did NOT authorize invasion. It would not have been agreed to if otherwise.

You said it, Nimh. Frustrating. You're not alone in not getting responses. Right is wrong, wrong is right, and don't you forget it!!

Latest on BBC:

US TV engineer charged with smuggling Iraqi artefacts into US.

Tartarin, good comment. And blatham, your earlier post on Chomsky is outstanding. He is a giant intellectually, (unless someone disagrees with him!)

For the record re: Chomsky, I think he's a smart, smart guy. I have quoted all kinds of things of his in terms of linguistics in papers I've written. Smart.

But I think he has tendencies to marshall his significant resources toward making a point, whether or not there are other facts that get in the way.

Kara - perhaps, and since you agreed with the preceding comment, you might explain to me how "Said" could be confused with "Estabrook"; each has one "a"?

Or how anyone quoting in good faith from Estabrook (other places evidently nicknamed Said) can't post a link to the story quoted, like so, f'r instance:
http://www.counterpunch.org/estabrook04222003.html

Final dark mystery - all on the comment you liked, mind you - is the identity of the quoted un-named "conservative" who's failed to notice that publicly expressing doubts about Jews killed on the orders of Hitler in Germany results in a prison sentence. PRISON, Kara - it's a criminal offense, as are many other things we take for granted like belonging to any particular political party - Walter will confirm these German laws with more details, am sure, whenever he logs in <G>

dafdaf, the resolutions are available at http://www.un.org/documents/scres.htm The initial conditions for the ceasefire of 1991 have been defied by Iraq; the ceasefire is moot. That subsequent resolutions have been passed is immaterial. The ongoing succession of later resolutions are windowdressing, and indicate the impotence and irrelevance of The UN.

timber, How can you claim some UN Resolutions are irrelevant and others being relevant. No consistency. It's gotta be all or none. c.i.

HofT, it is always better to go to the source. Thank you for linking.

I, too, am suspicious of unnamed conservatives (or liberals.) What I was agreeing with was the bent of Chomsky's take on propaganda.

I find myself always in the dissenters' camp and usually live there until I can locate truth in a mass general belief. I do not think moral and ethical foundations are unfindable; I am not a post-modern relativist, linguistic or otherwise. And I note your comment about German law, which is news to me, and scary. I await Walter's take.

timber, we can go back and forth endlessly about the resolutions. The issue is that the UN was created to solve conflicts peacefully. We did not allow this organization to wend its (sometimes) ponderous way to a non-war solution to the Iraq issue. We marginalized the UN, and we may have vitiated it by our actions. There may indeed be a positive fall out from this war; the global community will be lucky indeed is that is the end result. But the world cannot be run this way: the US cannot micromanage the world. We are powerful enough, but we are not smart enough. We need help from a world that has larger and longer visions than ours.

CI, I contend the resolutions subsequent to 687, which fail to enforce 660 et al, render themselves irrelevant. A range of conditions was set, and authorization was made for the use of "All Necessary Means" to insure the meeting of those conditions. The condition swere unsatisfied, and met by the UN with mere rhetoric, which hardly qualifies as "All Available Means". The UN has failed itself.