Riboflavin, I must assume that you haven’t read the thread, “Is the war about to happen illegal?” Please read it top to bottom.
And then read this one post of mine from earlier today in another thread.
After that, if you still believe that 1441 provides any sort of legal cover for US military action, please state your case, or at least post quotes of my statements that you disagree with.
For me, the vital difference is that both in the case of Haiti and in the case of the Balkans war, the stated point from the beginning was Human rights. Now I will come clean from the beginning that I am simply going from memory, and as an admitted Lefty that may be clouding rather than revealing. That said, was not the point of invading Haiti to restore a democratically elected leader? And with the war in Serbia, was not the point that we were attempting to stop genocide (and with the support of NATO, I might add)?
Contrast that with the current situation where we seem to be going in without having really explained why, and I think that you will see that the comparison does not hold. I.e. it’s because they are linked to 9/11, no it’s because they have WMD, well maybe it’s just to remove a horrible murdering dictator that is oppressing his people.
And please do not misunderstand me. I have no doubt that Clinton had some hidden agenda (I think that you simply get those as a side effect of being in government), and I am also sure that the removal of the current Iraqi regime will be a useful side effect of the was. However, I think that this is just a justification and that we are loosing sight of the fact that we have to date not been given a good reason for why this is happening.
And hell, perhaps the US needs to get in to the business of enforcing the UN charter around the planet. In some ways that would to me be a justifiable series of military actions. But, if we are going to do this than it needs to be our stated mission, we need to do so with the blessing of the UN and we need to get input about where to start.
No thanks, just quote for me the text supporting your position. A certain other poster has a tendancy to provide links to large blocks of text that don’t directly address the question, and I’ve learned better than to play that game. Tell me exactly what supports your contention that “Whether Iraq did or did not comply with 1441 was a decision reserved to the UNSC”, don’t just tell me to read a thread that is vaguely related to the topic.
You mean the one where you repeat the claim “Whether Iraq did or did not comply with 1441 was a decision reserved to the UNSC,” but fail to offer any supporting evidence?
I’ve already stated my case, demanding that I read another thread doesn’t change what I’ve posted, and I’ve specifically said what I disagree with. I could just order you to read a bunch of links in the hope that you’d give up, but instead I’ll just tell you to read the thread you’re replying to.
Source: Bush’s 48-Hour Deadline Speech To The World
While he does mention 1441 in the above speech, he is clearly invoking his authority as CnC of the sovereign USA, as well as Resolutions 678 and 687, as the basis to go to war with Iraq.
The question really is, do 678 and 687 allow a country to act unilaterally or under UN auspices? If the answer is yes, Bush should be free and clear with respect to an international legalities. If not, Bush is invoking a UN authority he does not possess and the USA is really operating as an independent sovereign nation.
sigh…
Fair enough. If you do not wish to educate yourself to the issues you are discussing, I will take it up, again, in this thread, per your wish. FTR, the other thread was on this very topic, with only brief hijacks.
First, I’ll point out your errors. For brevity, I’ll just make quick comments. Please let me know which ones require elaboration, and why.
Here is another quote from Colin Powell you should be aware of:
Now, notice his use of the phrase, “all necessary means”. It is very important. In the speaking style of the UNSC, that means, “use of force” (the alternative phrasing is “any means necessary”). Those words are found in UNSC 678, which authorized the coalition in GW1.
The US argued to have those words included in 1441. They are not to be found in 1441. “Serious consequences” never equated to an authorization to use force by the UNSC. It is the clear intent of the UNSC to reserve the authoriztaion for the use of force.
You response to the previous Powell quote implied that the US was just going to seek the UNSC’s advice (why else take it to them if it wasn’t required?). It doesn’t pass the straightface test.
A new resolution was required for the authorization of the use of force by the UNSC. The only resolution to authorize the use of force against Iraq was 678. The right for member states to use force to enforce 678 was rescinded in 687. No authorization for force has since replaced 687, a resolution that the US is obligated to uphold. Therefore, a new resolution would be required for the UNSC to authorize the use of force to enforce 1441, or any other previous resolution.
Incorrect. Allow me to quote myself from the post I referenced earlier.
Urban Ranger’s characterization wasn’t quite accurate, as that Blix was simply to report to the UNSC. The only “action” parts of 1441 are paragraphs 9 through 14. None authorize the use of force by member states. The most significant is that last one, that the UNSC “remains seized of the matter”, which is a way of saying that the verdict is still out.
Those quotes have been provided. They include Negroponte’s comment. They include Powell’s comments from above. They came from GW’s mouth, “regardles the whip count”. Your inability to see them is baffling.
Perhaps your intending to play semantics games here. No one needs to show assurances that the US would ask for a vote. But we can show you (if you care to see) that a vote was required, regardless of who asked for it. Why it was required has been addressed above. The assertion that 1441 somehow gives the US the right to determine violations of 1441 independently, and determine its action in compliance with 1441 is nonsensical. Let me know if you need me to explain why.
Incorrect. They swore to veto any resolution that allowed individual member states to use force. The topic is termed “automaticity”. They wanted the UNSC to retain the final authorization for the use of force - and that is very valid position, IMHO.
Hopefully, I have provided ample evidence to support this contention. If you believe I am in error, please be as specific as possible.
I am under no obligation to help you here, but let me give you a hint: Read Duckster’s post. If you wish to argue that the US is authorized by the UN to use force, you better start talking about 678, and figuring out why 1441 is irrelevent, as it will be used against you.
It still seems to me that the United States could only pass a 1441 without automaticity.
I may be overly cynical in thinking that Saddam had friends in the SC who would undermine the UN’s usefulness for their own profit, gambling that the US would not attack Iraq and make the UN appear powerless to stop them.
Perhaps Bush and Blair felt it would be a bigger blow to the validity of the UN to allow Iraq to continue manipulating it to the danger of other countries around Iraq and the suffering of the Iraqis. But I’d bet someone else has already started a thread along those lines.
-k
Kempis, or perhaps Bush had decided to go war with Iraq long ago, and wanted the UN to rubber stamp the invasion with 1441. When he saw that wouldn’t pass, he took a gamble that the UN inspectors would find WoMD and a second resolution would succeed. Since he had built up troops, he took a gamble that they would be found before the end of February. He lost the bet.
So he fell back to the PNAC playbook, asserting the preemptive force principle for self-defense. It’s a sham, but it provides some legal cover. The eagle spread her wings.
I’m not so quick to question the motives of the leaders of democracies that represent the will of their constituents. That one reason is good enough for me.
Aw, as Ford Prefect said I think that’s not-constructively cynical. 
I think Bush really wanted to disarm Iraq, and wouldn’t’ve invaded if Saddam had given up the WMD’s. But we’re both just guessing at the motives of another person, and this situation can be fairly viewed either way.
uh, what’s PNAC? 
-k
Fair enough. If you wish to pretend that my unwillingness to engage in a wild goose chase through a long thread to find a cite supporting your claims means I’m unwilling to educate myself, I will be sure to point out the silliness of your position every time you display it.
For brevity, your biggest error is that you have not provided a shred of text supporting your conention that the Us needs UN approval. I’ve already pointed out the problems with several of the cites you’re attempting to use as support in this very thread, so before you order me to read some other thread, perhaps you should read this one as I said before?
Here is an earlier quote from me on this very thread: “Powell said that he’s going to take Saddam’s repeated violations to the Security Council for them to convene immediately to consider what should be done. He didn’t say anything that supports the contention that SC approval would be required to do anything. Quotes of people saying ‘hey, I’m going to take this before this group’ simply don’t suppport ‘approval from this group is required for your actions to be legal’.”
The US sought (and acquired) a UN resolution for the use of force against those responsible for 9-11, Resolution 1368, despite the fact that US action against Afghanistan would be justified under the self-defense provisions, and so would not require the UNSC’s approval. It is pretty obvious to anyone without the heavy-duty blinders you wear that the US (or any country) would prefer to have a specific UN authorization for the use of force, even if no such authorization is actually required. While you may find it silly that US would want a powerful diplomatic tool like a UNSC resolution even if it’s not actually required, I think any observer without your issues will agree that the only thing laughable is your contention.
And even if I accepted your argument (which I don’t), the Powell quote would only show that Powell thought UN authorization is required, not that it is actually required. If we’re going to allow ‘what a US government official publicly states is the case’ as a cite for what is required, then I’ll just cite all of the various statements from various US government officials that support the contention that UN authorization is not required.
When you can answer the comments I’ve already made on Colin Powell’s statement perhaps I’ll take what you’re posting seriously, but any intellectually honest person reading this thread will see that you haven’t supported your claim. You can claim that the US doing the exact same thing for war in Iraq that they did for war in Afghanistan “doesn’t pass the straightface test”, but it just makes it clear that you’re not interested in real debate, but in
The Project For The New American Century, a neo-conservative think-tank group that advocates the position that, as the world’s sole superpower, the United States should do whatever the hell it wants and grab whatever it needs, international opinion be damned.
If this sounds anything like the current Administration’s policy, that’s not a surprise – many of the folks in Dubya’s Cabinet now are PNAC members, including Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, William J. Bennett, Richard Perle, and Dick Cheney.
Kempis, PNAC stands for the Project for the New American Century. The website has plenty of info on them. However, you may find this editorial a quick and easy read to provide context. I doubt that Iraq is just about WoMD. After reading (at least) the editorial, if you need me to “connect the dots”, let me know.
[on preview, thanks rjung]
Big sigh…
Riboflavin, in reviewing this thread, I note that I have done everything you have asked of me. I note that you have done little that I have asked of you.
From what I can tell, you’ve attempted to shift the argument. You’ve addressed a bunch of arguments, but not any of mine.
I never made that contention. I made the contention that the US does not have UN authorization for the use of force. I have supported my contention. Is that not what we have been debating (and I use that term loosely)? What, exactly, is your position?
Let’s get one thing clear. The only claim I made was that "I must assume that you haven’t read the thread, “Is the war about to happen illegal?” (which you implicitly confirm). In the same post, I said, “After that, if you still believe that 1441 provides any sort of legal cover for US military action, please state your case, or at least post quotes of my statements that you disagree with.”
Now that pretty clearly framed what I was debating. Were you debating something different? Because you didn’t state your case (and still haven’t). But you did repeat the question, “Tell me exactly what supports your contention that ‘Whether Iraq did or did not comply with 1441 was a decision reserved to the UNSC, …’” That gave me comfort that we were debating the same topic, but now I’m not so sure.
Nope, sorry. In my last post addressing your issues, I addressed every objection you have made with regards to the cites offered in this thread. I did not repeat the request that you read some other thread, in fact, I agreed to address your issues here. Red herring.
I added a “new” quote from Colin Powell. I followed it with three paragraphs. The first two paragraphs made simple statements of fact - and I note that you did not address any of those statements. Do you stipulate that they are, indeed, facts? Instead, you quote my third paragraph, where I directly address your previous objection to the Powell quote (which you just claimed I didn’t do).
Now, this is where I think you are starting to play games. I never have contended that the US (or any country) would not prefer to have a specific UN authorization for the use of force, even if no such authorization is actually required. If you remove the phrase, “to anyone without the heavy-duty blinders you wear”, I completely agree with the sentence. Again, what is your position? Is it shifting like the sands in the Iraqi desert? Or are you simply suggesting that seeking a UN resolution was simply a preference, but was not required for UN authorization?
And your second sentence is an obvious strawman. I have not contended that the US would not want a powerful diplomatic tool like a UNSC resolution even if it’s not actually required. In fact, I have argued the opposite (in other places). To whom are you responding here, or what is your point?
I’m not convinced you even know what it is.
OK. So before this post, you were prepared to argue that Molly Ivins misinterpreted statements of “US officials”, but now you wish to argue that any such interpretation (yours or hers) is not relevent? That’s fine, I accept. Let’s toss out all the quotes. Let’s focus on the text of the resolutions, and the context of all the prior resolutions related to Iraq, not to mention the UN charter. Is that OK with you? [sarcasm]Because asserting that the US Secretary of State and the US Ambassador to the UN have expertise in interpreting proper UN procedure and authority would be just plain silly, huh?[/sarcasm]
What? I thought you just said, “… the Powell quote would only show that Powell thought UN authorization is required, not that it is actually required.” And now, to be taken seriously, I have to answer comments you’ve already made on Colin Powell’s statement (which, FTR, I already have)? Which is it, Powell’s statements are either relevent or they are not. You tell me, I’ll play by your rules on this one. But you can’t have it both ways.
Allow me: Will any “intellectually honest person reading this thread” please let me know if I haven’t supported my claims? And if so, point out which ones? It appears beyond Riboflavin to do so.
But you said earlier:
I’m actually arguing that the US is doing something different, not “the exact same thing”. Another strawman. Kosovo would have been a better example to use here.
Now, I recognize that your last post ended abruptly, and is apparently not complete. If anything of substance was omitted, I look forward to your reposting. If it is more of this shell game and strawmen constructions, I will remain disappointed.
To hopefully head that off at the pass, please give yes or no answers to the following questions, so that we may properly establish your position. Feel free to elaborate or qualify your answers after answering yes or no. Feel free to ask me any questions under a similar construction, if you desire.
[ol]
[li]Is the US authorized by any UNSC resolution to use force in Iraq now?[/li][li]Does UNSC resolution 1441 authorize the US to use force against Iraq now?[/li][li]Is the US obligated to receive UNSC authorization via a UNSC resolution to use force in Iraq right now?[/li][/ol]
And btw, my answers are no, no, and yes, respectively.
Nope, you simply dismissed them out of hand. While you’re backpedaling like crazy from your “straight face test” now. Simple (and often condescending) assertions by you do not address anything, and switching your story only makes it look worse.
This is a perfect example of the level of intellectual honesty that you’ve displayed throughout this thread, and I hope any observers pay attention to it. Can you quote the part of my previous post where I said that you repeated the request that I read some other thread? No, because what I said was “If you wish to pretend that my unwillingness to engage in a wild goose chase through a long thread to find a cite supporting your claims means I’m unwilling to educate myself, I will be sure to point out the silliness of your position every time you display it.”
No, I stipulate that they are further unbacked assertions from you that I wasn’t interested in delving through the original text to investigate.
Dismissing it with a condescending and untrue claim does not qualify as ‘addressing’ it in my book.
You did, in fact, state “You response to the previous Powell quote implied that the US was just going to seek the UNSC’s advice (why else take it to them if it wasn’t required?). It doesn’t pass the straightface test.”
How does your statement “why else take it [a resolution] to them if it [a resolution] wasn’t required?” square with your asserton above that you never denied that the US would want a resolution if it wasn’t required?
I contend that the US was seeking to have specific UN authorization for the use of force, even though it’s not actually required, since the US (or any country) would prefer to have a specific UN authorization for the use of force, even if no such authorization is actually required. What else would I have meant by “Powell said that he’s going to take Saddam’s repeated violations to the Security Council for them to convene immediately to consider what should be done. He didn’t say anything that supports the contention that SC approval would be required to do anything. Quotes of people saying ‘hey, I’m going to take this before this group’ simply don’t suppport ‘approval from this group is required for your actions to be legal’.”
You did, in fact, state “You response to the previous Powell quote implied that the US was just going to seek the UNSC’s advice (why else take it to them if it wasn’t required?). It doesn’t pass the straightface test.”
How does your assertion that it “doesn’t pass the straightface test.” for the US to seek a resolution if it wasn’t required to fit with your ‘strawman’ accusation above? On one hand, you dismiss the idea that the US would seek UN approval even if such approval is not required as failing the straight-face test, yet now you turn around and state that you have argued that the US would, in fact, want a powerful tool like a UNSC resolution even if its not actively required. Which is it?
This is just getting absurd. I said “In fact, she appears to be absurdly wrong about the quote she’s using to support her position, most likely because of her bias. Let’s look at the relevant part of the quote:” and then included the quote from John Negroponte that she used. I asserted that Molly Ivins was not a sufficient cite for the assertion that the war is really in defiance of the UN, and used the fact that she supported her contention with a quote that did not actually support her position, and asked for something more substantive in support of the contention that the US is in violation of UN resolutions.
My position is that Molly Ivins is highly suspect as a cite, as supported by her misinterpretation of the text she used in support of her argument. I also hold that a simple statement by a US government official, does not demonstrate that the US is in violation of UN resolutions, especially when there are so many US officials stating the opposite.
So, you want to start off with a long argument about the quotes, then “accept” that they’re not relevant by arguing that they are, then toss even more stuff onto the end?
Nope, wrong again - do you believe that everything that ambassadors and secretaries of state say is true? The fact that you are either wildly misinterpreting the most basic facts about what I’m writing or simply being grossly intellectually dishonest (see the whole post above) makes it clear that attempting to debate you is pointless. I have included the material above for the benefit of any observers, but unless your next posting is dramatically different from the last, my response will be in the pit. Hell, you might have something interesting in the next bit, but after all of the jumping back I had to do I don’t really care.
My thought is that the UN is essentially a Federated body , with out the were withal to compel member nations by means other than moral. If we (any nation) no longer believes in the UN, then you are not compelled to follow directives from that body.
If by defiance of MOB rule ,then yes it probably is. Are they the same in reality , i would have to say no. One is authority to take action , the go ahead would indicate a date fixed, that was a gun was jumped.
YES thats exactly right , I am not sure about wether or not any one would contemplate taking action against the coalition , but at least pooh poohing the invasion on record would be in order , if you were that put out about it.
The situation that comes to mind for me , alough i forgot about clintons haitian vacation , that was mentioned downstream , was an irony in itself.
Vietnam of all places.
Basically , being no threat to vietnam and in defiance of the UN or its charter , did most maliciously invade a member state , by the name of cambodia, or kampuchea as the PC Crowd likes to think now.
The thing was , there was this dude called pol pot , who was basically making hitler and stalin look like pikers for the amount of people he could disapear.
So vietnam invades , drives pol pot to live somewhere , it was mentioned about 5 years ago , and the UN never said BOO. Not the States , not the Soviets , not the Chinese.
Some people need killing, sooner or later people come to realize this.
I can’t see alot of the peace protestors being PRO-iraqi , but I do see them being anti American , and thats what was being played out in the United Nations.
Declan
Riboflavin, I prepared a long, detailed point by point response to your last post, defending accusations against me and making new accusations against you. But I must agree with your sentiment that this thread is already a train-wreck, and I do not wish to continue that. I’ll save what I wrote as it may be useful if we end up in the pit, but I hope to never need to post it.
Instead, I offer an olive branch. I apologize for my snottiness in this thread.
I’d like us to keep this in GD, at least for now, in an attempt to dispel ignorance wherever it may exist. Should we not succeed here, the pit will always be there for us.
So I’m going straight to substance:
Claim - UNSC resolution 1441 does not authorize the use of force against Iraq by the US.
Facts supporting the claim:[ul][li] No UNSC resolution prior to 1441 continues to authorize the use of force against Iraq by member nations.[/li][li] The US is a member nation.[/li][li] UNSC only authorizes the use of force by member states with the phrase “all necessary means”.[/li][li] 1441 did not include the phrase “all necessary means”.[/li][li] 1441 “decides” that the UNSC remains “seized of the matter”.[/ul]Therefore, UNSC resolution 1441 does not authorize the use of force against Iraq by the US.[/li]
Now, I would hope you will stipulate points 2, 4, and 5. Do you disagree with 1 or 3?
Am I missing something?
Except that we adopted the UN Charter as a treaty, which becomes part of US law per the Constitution.
Sure, you can ignore the law, but you can’t describe it as legal. We can rescind our treaty obligations, and then we are free and clear. You are correct that the UN can’t compell anyone to follow directives - except through the use of force by member nations.
Violation of the UN charter is defiance of our treaty obligations. Without an imminent threat to justify self defense, and without UNSC resolution authorizing force, we are in violation of the UN charter.
It is not the obligation of the UN to condemn any particular action. It is the obligation of the UNSC to consider any resolution brought by a UN member. Iraq has brought such a resolution to condemn US action. As has been noted, the US could always veto any resolution put to vote on the UNSC.
The UN charter specifically states that peaceful means to resolve differences between nations are the default, and any member nation has the obligation to use and exhaust peaceful means. The US is bound to that by its ratification of the UN charter. The UN charter also specifically states that the only body with the authority to decide that a use of armed force is necessary is the UN Security Council. Even IF the US believes that a previous decision authorizes the use of armed force, that interpretation is meaningless if the other members disagree. You can’t just singlehandedly reinterpret UN resolutions in a way convenient for you. Otherwise, Iraq has done nothing wrong. If the Security Council had previously sanctioned the use of armed force, ESPECIALLY with a resolution as recent as 1441, they would likely remember having done so. The fact that they disagree with that interpretation demonstrates that such is not the case and a misinterpretation on part of the Bush administration.
Given that there is no immediate danger to the US from Iraq, the attack IS a violation of the UN charter.
Riboflavin, I’m going to address one contentious issue from above, since I think it also gets to the heart of your argument.
Simply because I never denied it doesn’t mean I’ve supported it. It is irrelevent to my position, since in this case, a specific resolution authorizing force was required. My point was that you are arguing against a position I have not taken. The second assertion did not assume that the US already had authorization, which you appear to assume.
The US may desire to seek a UNSC resolution, even if one were not required, for political purposes. However, I reject any assertion that the US would seek a UNSC resolution, as a preference, to authorize something that it is already authorized to do. The political risk outweighs a benefit that doesn’t exist. This is the straight-face test problem.
Part of the problem is the use of generalities. Applied to the current context, IF the US had authorization to use force from the UN in 1441, and then seeks UNSC authorization again as a preference (the “second resolution”), but fails to receive authorization, that failure is the equivalent of rescinding the authorization to use force that (supposedly) existed under 1441. Such action would clearly be against the will of the UNSC, and the UNSC cannot then be used to claim support for authorization, when it clearly failed to support it! Such action would be in defiance of the UNSC. It would be a perversion of the underlying purpose of the UN - that of a body for collective decision making between nations.
I would agree that a member nation may desire to have a UN resolution authorize force for political purposes. It may not need a resolution, as the member nation may either 1) rely on the self defense provisions of the UN charter; or 2) act without UN authorization. Otherwise, the member nation needs an explicit authorization for the use of force from the UNSC to remain in compliance with the UN charter.
I note that you have avoided making a statement to the effect that the US already had UN authorization. You continue with the words that it wasn’t required, but you haven’t explained why it wasn’t required. If it wasn’t required, why not? Where does the authorization come from?
If it is helpful, I agree with the concepts of what OliverH has added to the discussion.
AZ Cowboy, apology accepted and I’ll dig into your recent posts a bit more (it will probably be a little while before I have time to make a detailed response, especially since it looks like we’ll get into the meat now). On the Powell quote bit (since it’s quick):
The US sought a UN resolution for Afghanistan despite the fact that use of force against someone who harbored people engaged in hostilities against the US would clearly be self-defense and thereby allowed without a UNSC resolution. Several countries the US would have liked to have had as allies wanted a specific UN resolution before GW2, so whether it was required or not there was a clear political benefit from acquiring one. I don’t think you dispute either of these positions. Since the US has sought a resolution despite not needing one in the recent past, and since there was clear political benefit from getting a resolution whether it is actually required or not, I find it quite reasonable that the US would seek to acquire an explicit authorization from the UN despite it not being neccesary.
Since there’s a clear explanation for why the US would seek a resolution that doesn’t require that the resolution be required, the Powell quote doesn’t offer support for the contention that a new resolution would be required, though it’s certainly a cite that the US sought a resolution authorizing GW2. Note that I’m not arguing that the Powell quote shows that a UN resolution was not required, just that it doesn’t support that one was required because there’s a clear alternate explanation of why one would be sought. If the quote had included some text actually saying that what the US was doing was required, then it would be support for the US being in defiance of the UNSC (but I wouldn’t consider it sufficient on its own).
There’s no basis for that statement which I’m aware of; if authority currently exists for action, seeking an explicit authorization for that action and not getting the authorization doesn’t invalidate the previous authority. If this is just vaguely related to the main point and mostly related to the Powell bit, then skip it (I’m getting sick of the Powell bit since it’s not worth the amount of text we’ve bounced on it), but if it’s a core to the rest of your argument then - is there a precedent for ‘seeking authorization and not getting it removes any previous authorization’ in the UN, or something explicit somewhere, or other support for what you’ve said?
Riboflavin, before I respond to your last post, can you tell me where you believe the UN authorization for the use of force comes from?
I promise to go back and answer your last question, but the direction I go depends on your answer to the question above.
And take your time. I happen to have a good bit of spare time right now, but I really need to get started on my taxes!
Since your whole argument flows from that statement , I am gonna have to ask some other people before I would respond to it .
Since I am pretty sure that the constitution overrules any treaty or covenant.
Declan