Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations
Actually, as far as i can see, Chapter VII of the UN Charter makes no specific mention of Iraq whatsoever. You seem actually to be quoting from Security Council Resolution 1441. If you’re going to demand citations from others, you could at least get your own correct.
First you asked:
Then:
And, having been given numerous citations, and (if i might say so) a relatively coherent argument about why a US invasion of Iraq without Security Council approval would be a violation of international law, all you can come up with is:
You know, for a supporter of Bush, you’re sounding more like Clinton all the time. Pretty soon you’ll be saying that the whole thing depends on what your definition of “is” is.
It is true that SC1441 threatens Iraq with “serious consequences” if it continues to violate “its obligations.” It is also true that the definition of “serious consequences” can be debated.
But that debate needs to happen within the Security council. Given that Resolution 1441 was promulgated by the Security Council, it seems reasonable to argue that the same body - the Security Council - should be the one that determines what constitutes “serious consequences.” It is not the United States’s right to make that determination for itself. If it does so, and defies the Security Council, it will be in violation of the UN Charter.
I stated: He’s not one to let poll numbers dictate policy
You responed: Nor common sense or international law, apparently
I asked: So what international law are we talking about?
You respond back about Turkey, Israel and past violations by the US…I could care less about Turkey and Israel.
Did the US violations that you mentioned happen under the Bush administration? (besides the 1441 violation you claim). If so, then it’s a real eye opener. Because the Dems or the UN sure haven’t pointed it out.
You did agree that the “serious consequences” comment in 1441 can be debated. If the Security Council decides that it means “military intervention” to make Saddam disarm, then that means the US would not be in violation of international law.
Besides, Saddam could just resign and we wouldn’t have to worry about war. 
He shows that ANYONE can, with hard work and steely discipline, make it on their own and grow up to be President.
And having done that, he can make his son president as well.
Or his Wife!!! 
OK, i’ll go slowly here so you can keep up.
When you asked “what law,” i very clearly responded that Bush’s apparent intention to attack Iraq without Security Council support would, if acted upon, be a violation of the UN Charter, and hence of international law.
I only brought up the issue of Turkey and Israel to provide some context for wring’s post, and to make a more general point about US hypocrisy on this issue (which, BTW, extends to Democrats and Republicans). I made no claim that the US had violated any UN Security Council resolutions; the point i was making is that the US turns a blind eye when its allies (Israel, Turkey) violate those resolutions, but is willing to bomb Iraq for its violations.
I agree completely that “If the Security Council decides that it means ‘military intervention’ to make Saddam disarm, then that means the US would not be in violation of international law.” Do you agree that if Bush goes in without SC support, he is in violation of the UN Charter? The Security Council has not yet determined that “military intervention” is appropriate, yet the Bush administration is apparently prepared to invade even if the Security Council makes no such determination. I would, of course, be happy for Bush to prove me wrong and obey the Security Council if it votes against him, but i’m not hopeful.
The point that i was making, and that you ignored (wilfully or otherwise), was that the administration has made it increasingly clear over the past weeks that if the Security Council does not vote the way that Bush wants, then he is willing to attack Iraq anyway. This would be a clear violation of a the UN Charter, and the Bush administration’s rhetoric to this effect was the reason for my original post in which i said that he apparently does not let international law dictate foreign policy.
Thanks for going slowly…
I can finally keep up.
So…If the UN decides that military action won’t make Saddam disarm, then fine, Bush will be in violation if he decides to take action. We agree on that much.
So let me rephrase my nice statement about our President:
He’s not one to let poll numbers or international law dictate policy.
;j
Ummm…Danae, somewhere in that block of text I caught something about Somalia and Clinton. You do remember who put troops in that country without congressional approval or an exit strategy, don’t you? Hint: 41.
Just how the fuck is that a good thing?
“I don’t care what the rest of the world wants me to do, I’m invading Iraq.”
Yeah, there’s a leader.
If being a Bush supporter means associating with Danae, then count me out.
He continues to read scholarly and dense treatises and position papers, regardless of how tired his lips become.
He can call Vladimir “Vlad the Impaler” Putin “Pooty-poot” and get away with it. (If JFK had called Kruschev “Nicky-poo” it would have been “duck and cover” time, also known as “kiss yer ass goodbye” time. And Australia would rule the world.)
He called Kim Jong-Il a “malignant little dwarf” and may yet get away with it. Jury’s out on that. Let’s hope for the best.
Do you agree that disarming Saddam is a good thing?
If so, then the weapons inspectors aren’t gonna make him disarm. That’s not their job…They just FIND the weapons.
If you don’t agree that disarming him is good, why?
Don’t you think he’ll use them for some diabolical purpose? If not, then why is he hiding them?
We practically armed the guy in the 80’s, and he turned out to be a wacko, so it’s our responsibility to disarm him.
Danae was never the Greek Goddess of the spring. She was the mother of Perseus, who was sired by Zeus, who appeared to Danae as a shower of golden light as she was locked up in a tower by her father, King Acrisuis of Argos.
Danae was also a pre-Greek barley goddess.
Greek goddess of the spring is Maia, also origin of the name of the month of May. Other Greek goddess of spring could be considered Persephone.
Never Danae. Sorry.
What’s your favorite color?
Because that question has about as much relevence as yours.
But just to humor you …
I think that disarming Saddam is theoretically a good thing, but not through killing every body in his country. On the other hand, I think that if UN forces, or UN sanctioned authorities keep a close eye on him, he’ll never use any of the weapons he may or not be hiding. And coincidentally, that’s pretty much the argument that a lot of the dissenting voices are presenting.
To which GWB has thumbed his nose at because, “nobody makes ma-daddy look stupid,” or so it seems.
And what’s this we shit, kemosabe? Who armed him? The Reagan administration. So your argument seems to be that since we armed him (under a similiar administration) it is now our job to shut him down? When did the USA turn into Jack Palance in Shane? … “Go ahead … pick up the gun.”
Thanks for your reply, Jack.
"When did the USA turn into Jack Palance in Shane? … “Go ahead … pick up the gun.”
Bill Hicks?
At least I filch from the good 'uns.
We ought to have a special jargon for the point at which a thread spins out of control, OP theme wise. Like posting a pit thread about “Why are Libertarians so perv?” and somewhere about the 23rd post its a hotly contested exchange about 19th Century French Impressionists (“And I tell you, beetlebrain, that Manet is the root of all evil!!”) Some term.
Right about the 15th post, the thread jumped the shark
Certainly not.
When elucidator posted, the thread screwed the pooch
Too perjorative. Mutation, not deterioration, necessarily.
“Captain, we just experienced a gravitational hi-jack”
Something like that.
“Rogue thread! Rogue thread!”