Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread IV

Because Resolution 794 authorised the use of "all necessary means to establish as soon as possible a secure environment for humanitarian relief operations in Somalia".

(You see, there are UN resolutions that issue a mandate for military intervention and there are UN resolutions that don't. It's not such a difficult concept.)

You can go on this way for years, OE. Believe me.

It would have been far easier to admit that Annan made the statement, but that the UN hasn't passed a resolution or taken any action based upon said statement, which makes it hollow.

Of course, that would have meant admitting error. Why is that so difficult for you to do? It wasn't even a main point of your argument and the whole sidetrack could have been avoided. I honestly don't understand.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You can go on this way for years, OE. Believe me.

It would have been far easier to admit that Annan made the statement, but that the UN hasn't passed a resolution or taken any action based upon said statement, which makes it hollow.

Of course, that would have meant admitting error. Why is that so difficult for you to do? It wasn't even a main point of your argument and the whole sidetrack could have been avoided. I honestly don't understand.

Cycloptichorn

I have said that and said that and SAID that. But some can't seem to have a conversation based on what is said. They have to make it into something that wasn't said.

You can go on this way for years, OE. Believe me.

It would have been far easier to admit that Annan made the statement, but that the UN hasn't passed a resolution or taken any action based upon said statement, which makes it hollow.

Of course, that would have meant admitting error. Why is that so difficult for you to do? It wasn't even a main point of your argument and the whole sidetrack could have been avoided. I honestly don't understand.

Cycloptichorn

oe said...

Quote:

Because Resolution 794 authorised the use of "all necessary means to establish as soon as possible a secure environment for humanitarian relief operations in Somalia".

(You see, there are UN resolutions that issue a mandate for military intervention and there are UN resolutions that don't. It's not such a difficult concept.)

Forgive me,but exactly where does the resolution authorize military force?

A "secure environment" could have been established by paying the warlords for protection.
It could have bee established by providing the warlords with the supplies and letting them give it away.

So there was no actual mandate for military action in Somalia,just "to establish as soon as possible a secure environment".

There were many ways that could have been done.

oe said...

Quote:

Because Resolution 794 authorised the use of "all necessary means to establish as soon as possible a secure environment for humanitarian relief operations in Somalia".

(You see, there are UN resolutions that issue a mandate for military intervention and there are UN resolutions that don't. It's not such a difficult concept.)

Forgive me,but exactly where does the resolution authorize military force?

A "secure environment" could have been established by paying the warlords for protection.
It could have bee established by providing the warlords with the supplies and letting them give it away.

So there was no actual mandate for military action in Somalia,just "to establish as soon as possible a secure environment".

There were many ways that could have been done.

[Adopted as Resolution 1441 at Security Council meeting 4644, 8 November 2002]

The Security Council,

Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,

Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,

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

Foxfyre wrote:

Again.....since you again seem to be deliberately avoiding discussing any arguments I make......I ask you: Are you then saying that you believe Kofi Annan IS the United Nations and has full power to speak for it;

Of course. That's pretty much the job description of a UN Secretary General. Who else do you think has full power to speak for the United Nations if not the Secretary General?

mysteryman wrote:

oe said...

Quote:

Because Resolution 794 authorised the use of "all necessary means to establish as soon as possible a secure environment for humanitarian relief operations in Somalia".

(You see, there are UN resolutions that issue a mandate for military intervention and there are UN resolutions that don't. It's not such a difficult concept.)

Forgive me,but exactly where does the resolution authorize military force?

A "secure environment" could have been established by paying the warlords for protection.
It could have bee established by providing the warlords with the supplies and letting them give it away.

So there was no actual mandate for military action in Somalia,just "to establish as soon as possible a secure environment".

There were many ways that could have been done.

Exactly. And while most UN resolution are pretty ambiguous (and toothless), the resolutions dealing with Iraq demanded that he comply. All 14 of them. And there probably would have been 14 more if there had been no invasion.

I have yet had one liberal bush-basher admit that continuing the sanctions would have been horribly cruel and unconscionable once we got in there and saw what they were doing to people. They go right ahead and make the argument that Saddam was contained and harmless. What difference did it make if Saddam and his European cronies, including some in the UN, were getting filthy rich off the OFF monies the people weren't seeing? Or that our peacekeepers in the no fly zone were being regularly shot at? Or that the 9/11 Commission, Duelfer, and others were all in agreement that Saddam would have resumed his WMD program the minute the sanctions were lifted.

Again, with some historical distance to provide perspective, we may conclude the invasions was a really dumb move. I'll leave that to history to sort out.

Right now my interest is in leaving things much improved. And we won't do that if we cut and run just because we picked something really hard to do.

And here's the opening phrases of Resolution 1440:

Quote:

[Adopted as Resolution 1441 at Security Council meeting 4644, 8 November 2002]

The Security Council,

Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,

Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,

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

See any similarity in this and in the wording in Resolution 794? If the wording in Resolution 794 'authorized military intervention', how does the wording in Resolution 1440 not authorize military intervention?

mysteryman wrote:

oe said...

Quote:

Because Resolution 794 authorised the use of "all necessary means to establish as soon as possible a secure environment for humanitarian relief operations in Somalia".

(You see, there are UN resolutions that issue a mandate for military intervention and there are UN resolutions that don't. It's not such a difficult concept.)

Forgive me,but exactly where does the resolution authorize military force?

A "secure environment" could have been established by paying the warlords for protection.
It could have bee established by providing the warlords with the supplies and letting them give it away.

So there was no actual mandate for military action in Somalia,just "to establish as soon as possible a secure environment".

There were many ways that could have been done.

I agree, mysteryman. There were many ways that a "secure environment for humanitarian relief operations in Somalia" could have been established, and the resolution allowed for all of them. Including military means. That's pretty much what is meant by "all necessary means".

And what's your question?

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized all member states to use ALL NECCESSARY MEANS (accent mine) to uphold and implement its resolution 660 of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area

Including military means. That's pretty much what is meant by "all necessary means".

Who else do you think has full power to speak for the United Nations if not the Secretary General?

old europe wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

oe said...

Quote:

Because Resolution 794 authorised the use of "all necessary means to establish as soon as possible a secure environment for humanitarian relief operations in Somalia".

(You see, there are UN resolutions that issue a mandate for military intervention and there are UN resolutions that don't. It's not such a difficult concept.)

Forgive me,but exactly where does the resolution authorize military force?

A "secure environment" could have been established by paying the warlords for protection.
It could have bee established by providing the warlords with the supplies and letting them give it away.

So there was no actual mandate for military action in Somalia,just "to establish as soon as possible a secure environment".

There were many ways that could have been done.

I agree, mysteryman. There were many ways that a "secure environment for humanitarian relief operations in Somalia" could have been established, and the resolution allowed for all of them. Including military means. That's pretty much what is meant by "all necessary means".

And what's your question?

So whats the problem with what the US did?
If you actually READ UN resolution 1441,you will see this part...

Quote:

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized all member states to use ALL NECCESSARY MEANS (accent mine) to uphold and implement its resolution 660 of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/1441.pdf

So,if the UN called for ALL NECCESSARY MEANS,then that does include the use of force.
You just said so here...

Quote:

Including military means. That's pretty much what is meant by "all necessary means".

OE,
You didnt go an read the link I posted,did you?
I quoted one paragraph,but if you actually read the entire resolution,it was quite clear what would happen if Iraq refused to comply 100%.

They didnt,and they paid the price as authorized by the UN in the paragraph I quoted.
You notice it said ALL SUBSEQUENT RESOLUTIONS.
That included 1441.

mysteryman wrote:

OE,
You didnt go an read the link I posted,did you?
I quoted one paragraph,but if you actually read the entire resolution,it was quite clear what would happen if Iraq refused to comply 100%.

They didnt,and they paid the price as authorized by the UN in the paragraph I quoted.
You notice it said ALL SUBSEQUENT RESOLUTIONS.
That included 1441.

I read Resolution 1441. Resolution 1441 does not authorize Member States to use all necessary means.

Resolution 678 did authorize Member States to use all necessary means. Do you remember what Resolution 678 was about, mysteryman?

You notice it said ALL SUBSEQUENT RESOLUTIONS.
That included 1441.

mysteryman wrote:

You notice it said ALL SUBSEQUENT RESOLUTIONS.
That included 1441.

You know why I ask you whether you've read Resolution 678? Because Resolution 678 mentions ALL RELEVANT SUBSEQUENT RESOLUTIONS since Resolution 660. (Btw, you omitted the word "relevant" in your post. Probably a mistake and not on purpose.)

The relevant subsequent resolutions are Resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990, Resolution 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, Resolution 662 (1990) of 9 August 1990, Resolution 664 (1990) of 18 August 1990, Resolution 665 (1990) of 25 August 1990, Resolution 666 (1990) of 13 September 1990, Resolution 667 (1990) of 16 September 1990, Resolution 669 (1990) of 24 September 1990, Resolution 670 (1990) of 25 September 1990, Resolution 674 (1990) of 29 October 1990 and Resolution 677 (1990) of 28 November 1990.

Please point out to me where it mentions Resolution 1441 in that list, mysteryman, or alternatively admit that your statement was mistaken.

mysteryman wrote:

You notice it said ALL SUBSEQUENT RESOLUTIONS.
That included 1441.

You know why I ask you whether you've read Resolution 678? Because Resolution 678 mentions ALL RELEVANT SUBSEQUENT RESOLUTIONS since Resolution 660. (Btw, you omitted the word "relevant" in your post. Probably a mistake and not on purpose.)

The relevant subsequent resolutions are Resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990, Resolution 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, Resolution 662 (1990) of 9 August 1990, Resolution 664 (1990) of 18 August 1990, Resolution 665 (1990) of 25 August 1990, Resolution 666 (1990) of 13 September 1990, Resolution 667 (1990) of 16 September 1990, Resolution 669 (1990) of 24 September 1990, Resolution 670 (1990) of 25 September 1990, Resolution 674 (1990) of 29 October 1990 and Resolution 677 (1990) of 28 November 1990.

Please point out to me where it mentions Resolution 1441 in that list, mysteryman, or alternatively admit that your statement was mistaken.