So you haven’t read it. And the language that you claim is in there isn’t there. Wouldn’t you say that’s a pretty big mistake?
I posted this for a reason: “The US and Britain are seeking nine votes in favour of the draft resolution they presented last week, which would then force the French or Russians to use their veto.”
I wrote this a few days ago:
"Obama can always go ahead without UN approval and that would not change. What improves for Obama after nine or more council members vote for a new draft resolution that authorizes military action if Assad uses CW again, is that even with a Russian veto Obama has what is tantamount to international approval to act alone or with a few other nations in a coalition.: - NotfooledbyW 09-27-2013 04:01 PM SyrDrive270p0401
The answer to your first question is no. The answer to your second question is no if you mean that it must be authorized by the UNSC. The answer to your second question is yes if you mean that a member state can act unilaterally and without UNSC authorization to keep and restore international peace and security because of the threat of Assad’s CW arsenal presents to the world.
The yes answer to your second question is what GW Bush did with regard to Iraq. Bush invaded and occupied Iraq without UNSC authorization and that is what I have been saying.
It would hypothetically be the same for Obama however my argument is that if Syria commits a serious violation of the new UNSC Resolution, I believe the UNSC could find at least nine votes to favor taking action and force Putin to veto it.
Putin disgraces the Russian Federation if it is clear that Assad is not cooperating or if Assad kills again with CW.
You mean act against explicit UN rules that the state signed, right?
And the state can act unilaterally with or without nine or however many votes of UNSC members. It makes absolutely no legal difference. None.
There is no mistake. There is no hidden trigger or automaticity to use force in UNSC Resolution 1441. It has no language that can be interpreted as such. It does have language that tells what happens in the event that the Chief Inspectors of the IAEA or UNMOVIC reported Iraq in violation of the terms of 1441. What happens is not automatic or a trigger for the use of force or war or sanctions. What happens is that the UNSC members were to convene a meeting and discuss what to do about it. I posted the paragraphs 4, 11 and 12 which are relevant. Please take a minute and read it.
And if you can find a hidden trigger or automaticity for use of force in 1441, please point it out to all of us.
Otherwise you need to quit assuming that I have made a mistake. You have to back it up when you claim I made a mistake. And you have not done so and cant.
Are you asking if a U.S. President can take unilateral military action against another member state without UNSC approval. It must be yes because that is exactly what GW Bush did and you most likely from what I’m hearing supported it.
Kofi Annan says what Bush did was not legal and I agree with him.
But Bush did not have a majority of UNSC members with him and then have a permanent member veto it. Bush wanted a majority when he tried to convince nine members to agree that inspections were not working. Bush failed.
What I’m saying about Obama in the event of Syrian non compliance with the new UN resolution and the CWC obligations would be that in the event that Obama received that nine vote majority that Bush didn’t, Putin would still veto it perhaps, but if he did Obama has much more legitimacy to take military action however limited than did Bush without UNSC authorization to do it.
I think you fondness for Bush and dislike for Obama clouds your ability to get what I’m saying. But that is just a guess for now.
Terr, you are still arguing after I plainly called the play. The ball was dead. Fifteen yards.
You claimed there is a specific paragraph in 1441 and quoted it. There isn’t. You refuse to admit it. There is nothing more to talk about - when you claim things that don’t exist there is no basis for discussion.
Yes, he can. You insistence that the votes of nine members of UNSC somehow make some kind of difference is what’s bizarre.
I didn’t claim there was a specific paragraph in 1441. That was Magiver’s cite. I was using it because it defined what was not in 1441. And that is a hidden trigger and automatic to use military force. I never said those exact words were in there. How ridiculous do you want to be? If something is not in there such as automaticity to use force then those words are not necessarily in there.
Yes, you did. This is a quote from your post above:
"Must we pretend that 1441 does not qualify the Chapter VII enforcement language to include this:
This resolution contains no “hidden triggers” and no “automaticity” with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12."
It makes a difference in the legitimacy of the action when comparing Iraq March 2003 to the hypothetical event that Syria violates the terms of the new UNSC Resolution. And that is what the discussion was about until you came along obviously not understanding what the discussion was about.
In either case the action is illegitimate if you look at it from the UN point of view. And since you’re talking about the UN Security Council (with the emphasis on UN) what other point of view is relevant to that vote?
That is not saying that those exact words are written there. That is saying that the meaning of the words written there match this synopsis.
Go read paragraphs 4, 11 and 12 and if it means something different than Magiver’s synopsis tell me what the difference is. And if you can find the hidden trigger or the automaticity with respect to the use of force then let me know.
If you cannot, why not go back to the meat of the discussion as explained in the preceding post.
You can’t weasel out of it. “Include this” means “include this”. Honesty in a discussion is important. Since none can be found with you, this is the end of it.
Obama was being knocked as poor diplomatically because he could not stir up ‘support’ for a limited military effort’ to punish Syria prior to the huge diplomatic breakthrough that Obama achieved. Now that the diplomatic achievement is being solidified, the knock on Obama is that he is being played a fool because Putin and Assad have no intention to fully comply.
What I’m saying in that context is that I believe in the event of future violations by Assad’s regime, Obama will get the support he had not yet put together before… you know when you were make fun of Kerry remarks in the OP of this thread.
To me and anyone capable of thinking about this it would be obvious that Obama would have support despite a Russian veto to strike Syria more and much more legitimately in the international community if he had an actual vote in his favor by the UNSC but Russia vetoed it.
It is speculation about the future but I am not speculating about the past or wrong as you and Magiver have been about the UNSC authorizing Bush’s invasion of Iraq when it didn’t.
Your errors in thinking have not gone unnoticed about the UNSC authorizing the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. They didn’t.
Well hope springs eternal but there are 2 things wrong with what you’ve said. First, Obama made a threat without putting together the support behind it. That’s just a flat-out mistake on his part.
Second, It’s highly unlikely he will gather public support for propping up a group of people who are hostile to the United States. We would be supporting people who execute prisoners, burn down churches and attempt to convert people to their religion. Osama Bin Laden is the poster child of non-intervention.
Doing something unpopular is no mistake when the objective is right. Obama’s objective was laudable and the best possible result has been achieved as a result of Obama’s threat to use force against a despicable regime and the not so respectable on humanitarian matters leader that supports it.
Your anti-everything-hissy-fit failed when Putin gave in to Obama and the reality of two Obama objectives were achieved with lightning speed. Syria joined the CWC and the UNSC passed a Resolution that binds the Assad regime to complying with the Kerry/Putin agreement in Geneva.
Your wailing and whining about Obama’s failure to muster support is as hilarious as it is pitiful. You don’t know when to quit when you and your fellow Obama dissers have been beaten.
Terr can’t deal with the fact that the ‘words’ in 1441 match exactly what the Magiver cite says and means. So Terr has attempted to detour the argument down a path of matching exact words to words. That is because when the argument is based upon relevance and context and facts Terr loses.
Trivial nonsense aside both Magiver and Terr are on record with a declaration that 1441 was not a two stage process. 1441 is supposed to have teeth, but 2118 has no teeth therefore Obama has been outplayed by the wily Putin and the insincere Assad. On the basis of two step process and no automaticity to use force the two UNSC resolutions are nearly identical but for the fact that 1441 was passed under Chapter VII and 2118 references in the event of a violation Chapter VII will be invoked.
That is mostly because with 1441 Chapter VII has been in effect since 1991. And with regard to Syria, Putin has pointed out that the Assad regime is coming forward and proactive from the start so the issue is being resolved and Chapter VII is not needed unless there is a change in that attitude prior to the CW arsenal being destroyed.
But the fact remains that 1441 did not authorize force automatically or with any kind of trigger hidden or not. The members were to convene a meeting basically to discuss it.
Terr’s argument against that fact has been that those are not the exact words used in the document known as UNSC Resolution 1441.
Could we have some common sense on this forum about language usage and the meaning of words and intent of public documents and speeches and utterances.
I think exiting a discussion on such trivial pursuits of matching thoughts and expressions to exact words alone is simply a way to leave without admitting that one is wrong.
sorry no, that’s not how it works. He’s the President of the United States. He represents the people, not the other way around.
You keep saying this when you can’t address what I said. Supporting terrorists is a stupid thing to do. We don’t have a side in this civil war. Putin’s military introduction of a ship-killer into the Mediterranean sea ramped up the political posturing of Obama and forced him into creating a worthless UN resolution which cut Obama off at the news for future international support.
"Your obama-can-do-no-wrong hero worship has blinded you into believing Obama achieved any goal in the region. It’s done nothing to address the war.
You started a thread trying to glorify a rookie political mistake and now you’re upset that the rest of the planet didn’t join in. Obama does not have the public support, Congressional support, UN support, or international support for military intervention in Syria and that is a fact that is stuck in your craw. It further annoys you that Putin of all people rescued Obama. Not Cameron, PUTIN.
Everything you write makes absolutely no sense.
99% of diplomacy is behind the scenes.
There’s a reason that diplomacy with Iran is breaking out. Syria has a lot to do with it:
This was dated September 18:
You seem to think that the threat of limited punitive strikes had nothing to do with the diplomatic turnaround with regard to Syria. But you cannot explain why Putin waited until after the CW attack in August and Obama’s threat to use force to change.
You can’t explain that inconsistency in your thinking.
But it is fun to watch you dance.