Article 2 (4) says: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”
That had to have been waived or modified or something as a result of the cease-fire agreement after Desert Storm; otherwise, the U.S. and others have been enforcing the no-fly zones over Iraq without any jurisdiction whatsoever, which I know is not the case.
Here’s what Article 42 says: “Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.” That’s just outlining what the UNSC can do. I suppose that if the UN decides the U.S. is far enough out of line, this Article gives the UN the right to use air, sea or land forces to make the U.S. stop.
And here’s Article 51: “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.” That’s just saying Iraq (in this instance) can defend itself, and it’s supposed to tell the UNSC what it’s doing to defend itself.
I’m sure there are Articles that specify what you’re saying, but I don’t think these are the Articles that do that.
So you’re saying that if something is illegal, it is therefore unjustifiable?
SADDAM IS PROHIBITED BY UN SANCTIONS TO HAVE SCUD MISSILES. SADDAM VIOLATED THE UN SANCTIONS.
Some of us who do NOT buy into the political rhetoric about “stopping terror” or “weapons of mass destruction” might possibly have other reasons for thinking that Saddam should be eliminated. The fact that he so blatantly violated UN sanctions - with this coupled with the atrocities he committed towards his people along with his violation of the no-fly zone - justifies, in my opinion, the current military action.
Spoofey dear - the reason folks are so focused on “are ‘scuds’ WOMD” is 'cause the OP (that would be Milo asserted that Iraq had launched WOMD (see title of thread, and OP), and has attempted to claim that the missile itself armed even only w/a conventional warhead = a WOMD (not ‘something he wasn’t supposed to have’)
Here you are completely wrong. He can manufacture mortar and missiles as much as he likes, as long as they don’t exceed 150 km range. These aluminium tubes could NOT under ANY circumstances be used to manufacture “nukular” weapons.
But thats not the only time he has lied to the people. The connection to Al qaeda. No proof has been found and yet he blatantly declares that one of the reasons he’s going to war is that Iraq has aided and trained Al Qaeda operatives. This is a naked LIE. Likewise he declares that Iraq must be disarmed before Saddam gives chemical weapons to Al Qaeda, even though there is no proof of their existance, and inspectors have not been able to find any. Yet he chants this as if it is common knoledge. Almost everything that comes out of that mans mouth is a lie.
This administrations policy of domination and self interest is evil. I hope the US will wake up from this nightmare and remove its KILLER President.
Then shift the topic of conversation, Wring. Milo’s labeling of Scud’s as “WMD’s” was an error, yes, but his (only) point wasn’t that Saddam had WMD’s, but that he also violated the UN sanctions.
Call me silly, but I think whether or not Saddam violated UN sanctions is far more important than whether or not Milo got his nomenclature correct. But that’s just me, silly ol’ me, putting humanity as more important than military labels.
SPOOFE, it’s a very important distinction. WMD’s use in battle is forbidden to everyone because they’re so damned grotty. Long-range missiles aren’t forbidden to everyone.
Hussein’s possession of WMDs has been one of Bush’s major moral arguments in favor of war. If that argument falls through, it weakens both the case for war and the US government’s reputation for honesty.
Which, now that I think about it, is sort of like ruining France’s reputation for humility. Maybe Bush isn’t too worried.
Generally I tend towards agree with you, Milo, but you should really not continue to try to make an argument that SCUDs are Weapons of Mass Destruction. It sounds like rationalizing of the highest order.
I’m not going to be a total piece of shit asshole and tell you to shut the fuck up though.
Can somebody please explain to me why Saddam violating UN Security Council resolutions somehow validates this war, when the war itself opposed by most of the UN Security Council?
So, to sum up so far:[ul][]Missiles were fired from Iraq into Kuwait[]They were believed to be SCUDS, but turned out to be FROGS (love the name!)[]It has not been demonstated that Saddam still has SCUDS (although he might have for all I know)[]Saddam might still have Al-Sammouds, which are (IIRC) calibrated at 150 km, but with a margin of error, so some will reach up to 190 km, therby violating UN sanctions[]Neither SCUDS, FROGS, or Al-Sammouds are WMD’s per se, unless they are armed as such[]Today’s missiles were armed conventionally[/ul]Great show, Milo. Holy crap, that crow tastes bad.
When I searched for “cock,” “gigantic,” and “Dumbguy,” I got 0 hits. Are you sure you’re doing Internet research properly?