# UN unanimously adopts resolution on Iraq **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 9, 2004, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-unanimously-adopts-resolution-on-iraq/249408 "2004-06-09T04:10:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2004, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-unanimously-adopts-resolution-on-iraq/249408/21 "2004-06-09T20:32:33Z")
> [@New Iskander](#): > > Sure, by any number of means, all hypothetical and theoretical. Right, which pounds your so-called logical premise into dust. > [@](#): > > Also, as **ElvisL1ves** said, we might have caught Osama instead (except that we might have killed him long ago) For the record, Clinton _did_ try to take out Osama, but was unable, but not for lack of trying. Bush put it on the back burner until 9/11, apparently not believing it to be important. > [@](#): > > , might not lost 800+ US soldiers (except those that might have died chasing Osama) I don’t understand this. Are you saying it’s better for U.S. soldiers to die going after Saddam, who had NO connection to 9/11, than going after Osama, who was clearly responsible for 9/11? 😕 > [@](#): > > They didn’t have to recognize Iraq new “puppet” gov’t, have they? How would that help matters? It’s a testiment to the pragmatism of the U.N. that they are willing to do what’s in the best interest of everyone, rather than be spiteful and vindictive. We can’t _undo_ the damage Bush has done; the only thing left is to try to take lemons and make lemonade. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2004, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-unanimously-adopts-resolution-on-iraq/249408/22 "2004-06-09T22:01:35Z")
Depends what point in time you mean, Blowero. [Consider:](http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/2002/11/13_Laden.html)l > [@](#): > > “The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him.” > > - G.W. Bush, 9/13/01 > > “I want justice…There’s an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, ‘Wanted: Dead or Alive,’” > > - G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI > > “…Secondly, he is not escaping us. This is a guy, who, three months ago, was in control of a county [sic]. Now he’s maybe in control of a cave. He’s on the run. Listen, a while ago I said to the American people, our objective is more than bin Laden. But one of the things for certain is we’re going to get him running and keep him running, and bring him to justice. And that’s what’s happening. He’s on the run, if he’s running at all. So we don’t know whether he’s in cave with the door shut, or a cave with the door open – we just don’t know…” > > - Bush, in remarks in a Press Availablity with the Press Travel Pool, > The Prairie Chapel Ranch, Crawford TX, 12/28/01, as reported on > official White House site > > “I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.” > > - G.W. Bush, 3/13/02 > > “I am truly not that concerned about him.” > > - G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden’s whereabouts, > 3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02) Yet Kerry is the flip-flopper. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2004, 8:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-unanimously-adopts-resolution-on-iraq/249408/23 "2004-06-10T08:09:17Z")
> [@New Iskander](#): > > It’s called [Categorical Syllogism](http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e08a.htm). > > _Major premise_: No new Iraq gov’t without Saddam removal. > _Minor premise_: No Saddam removal without Bush invasion. > _Conclusion_: UN unanimous approval of new Iraq gov’t = UN unanimous approval of Bush invasion. No - its called hyperbolic bullshit when the conclusion does not derive from either premise. Try again. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2004, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-unanimously-adopts-resolution-on-iraq/249408/24 "2004-06-10T18:10:34Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > I really _must_ keep up with current events. I had no _idea_ that the rules of formal logic had been updated to reflect post-modernist irony. What we consider “post-modernist” will be called “archaic” in 50 years. The laws of logic will apply much longer. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2004, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-unanimously-adopts-resolution-on-iraq/249408/25 "2004-06-10T18:13:21Z")
> [@tagos](#): > > No - its called hyperbolic bullshit when the conclusion does not derive from either premise. I’d like to see _you_ find a cite for _that_. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2004, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-unanimously-adopts-resolution-on-iraq/249408/26 "2004-06-10T18:51:17Z")
Oh, darn! Stinks to have to do this. Sorry, **New Isk** , but I wasn’t really making any cogent comment on post-modernism as a cultural context. It was really a derisive and sarcastic comment upon your “syllogism”, which bears no resemblance to logic, or at least not as it is known on this planet. Sorry if you misunderstood. (Shit, now I feel like I just drop-kicked a puppy through the goal-posts…) ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2004, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-unanimously-adopts-resolution-on-iraq/249408/27 "2004-06-10T19:00:35Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Depends what point in time you mean, Blowero. [Consider:](http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/2002/11/13_Laden.html)l > > Yet Kerry is the flip-flopper. I’m still not ruling out the possibility that Osama is going to suddenly make a “coincidental” appearance sometime around October. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2004, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-unanimously-adopts-resolution-on-iraq/249408/28 "2004-06-10T20:44:36Z")
> [@New Iskander](#): > > It’s called [Categorical Syllogism](http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e08a.htm). > > _Major premise_: No new Iraq gov’t without Saddam removal. > _Minor premise_: No Saddam removal without Bush invasion. > _Conclusion_: UN unanimous approval of new Iraq gov’t = UN unanimous approval of Bush invasion. Even if we accept your premises, there is no logical relationship between them and the conclusion. The removal of S.H. changed the facts on the ground. The U.N. is therefore responding to the new circumstances. It can’t change what has already happened, so it needs to deal with the reality of putting a new government in place. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-unanimously-adopts-resolution-on-iraq/249408/29 "2004-06-11T06:02:48Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > I just drop-kicked a puppy through the goal-posts… Aw, shucks, you fooled me again. Lefties speak with a forked tongue. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 9:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-unanimously-adopts-resolution-on-iraq/249408/30 "2004-06-11T09:38:52Z")
> [@New Iskander](#): > > I’d like to see _you_ find a cite for _that_. I refer you to your own post. I’m sorry, if you think what you posted was ‘logic’ then clearly you are not equipped to debate anything in a logical fashion so I’m not going to waste my time ‘proving’ a self-evidently absurd assertion is self-evidently absurd. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-unanimously-adopts-resolution-on-iraq/249408/31 "2004-06-11T15:43:31Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > The U.N. is therefore responding to the new circumstances. It can’t change what has already happened, so it needs to deal with the reality of putting a new government in place. Don’t fall for anti\_Bush propaganda. The transfer pf power, unanimously authorized by UN, is not from Bush to new Iraq. It is _from Saddam to new Iraq_. ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-unanimously-adopts-resolution-on-iraq/249408/32 "2004-06-11T16:02:37Z")
> [@New Iskander](#): > > Don’t fall for anti\_Bush propaganda. The transfer pf power, unanimously authorized by UN, is not from Bush to new Iraq. It is _from Saddam to new Iraq_. You should have read it before making an absurd declaration like that: From the text of the resolution (I found it url=http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article\_Type1&call\_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1086689012982]here > [@U.N. Security Council](#): > > 1. Welcomes that, also by 30 June 2004, the occupation will end and the Coalition Provisional Authority will cease to exist, and that Iraq will reassert its full sovereignty; The resolution clearly admits that the US is currently the occupying power. ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-unanimously-adopts-resolution-on-iraq/249408/33 "2004-06-11T16:03:44Z")
Crap. Here’s a better link anway: [Resolution 1546 (2004)](http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N04/381/16/PDF/N0438116.pdf?OpenElement) ---
**Author:** ![Early\_Out](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Early\_Out](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Early_Out)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-unanimously-adopts-resolution-on-iraq/249408/34 "2004-06-11T16:37:00Z")
> [@New Iskander](#): > > It’s called [Categorical Syllogism](http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e08a.htm). > > _Major premise_: No new Iraq gov’t without Saddam removal. > _Minor premise_: No Saddam removal without Bush invasion. > _Conclusion_: UN unanimous approval of new Iraq gov’t = UN unanimous approval of Bush invasion. Let’s see how that works with **elucidator’s** example: _Major premise_: No rebuilding of structure without fire. _Minor premise_: No fire without arson. _Conclusion_: unanimous approval of rebuilding = unanimous approval of arson. Yup, works for me! ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-unanimously-adopts-resolution-on-iraq/249408/35 "2004-06-11T17:16:52Z")
> [@New Iskander](#): > > Don’t fall for anti\_Bush propaganda. The transfer pf power, unanimously authorized by UN, is not from Bush to new Iraq. It is _from Saddam to new Iraq_. Ermm . . . this is more irony, right? Bush already transferred power from Hussein to himself, on his own initiative, without the UN’s authorization. All the UN can do now is endorse the transfer of power from the Coalition (i.e., the Bush Admin) to a new Iraqi government . . . or not endorse it. Look, never mind who commands the occupying troops. How much purely **political** autonomy is the new government to have? For instance, what happens if they decide they want to kick out Halliburton and reclaim control over Iraq’s oilfields and their revenues? ---
**Author:** ![Cronos1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/977dab/32.png) [@Cronos1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cronos1)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-unanimously-adopts-resolution-on-iraq/249408/36 "2004-06-11T17:49:44Z")
New Iskander, The UN resolution says that sovereignty should be returned to the Iraqis; and that should be done expeditiously and judiciously. The UN support for continued maintenance of foreign forces in Iraq is based on the realization that without a strong, well-coordinated military the country would fall further into chaos. Nothing there is a ringing endorsement of Bush or an admission what the US did there a year ago, in spite of international objection, was right. During the G8 summit Bush came up short when wanted to get debt relief for Iraq, and his proposed use of NATO forces was also rebuffed. So there doesn’t seem to be any ground swell of international support for Bush. What is being recognized by the UN members is what the logical next steps are, not a rally behind US’ cause. Of course, there does seem to be a concerted effort by the administration to extrapolate any kind of “yea” vote at the UN to mean that its members are beginning to support US’ actions. I am not sure whether that’s wishful thinking, or is it more of their propaganda which is force-fed to us. ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-unanimously-adopts-resolution-on-iraq/249408/37 "2004-06-11T17:55:56Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Look, never mind who commands the occupying troops. How much purely **political** autonomy is the new government to have? For instance, what happens if they decide they want to kick out Halliburton and reclaim control over Iraq’s oilfields and their revenues? Here are the relevant paragraphs. Also, apparently my link above is cookie-dependent and doesn’t work, try going [here](http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_resolutions04.html) and selecting the resolution (it’s 1546, currently the top link). > [@U.N. Security Council Resolution 1546](#): > > 1. Notes that, upon dissolution of the Coalition Provisional Authority, the > funds in the Development Fund for Iraq shall be disbursed solely at the direction of > the Government of Iraq, and decides that the Development Fund for Iraq shall be > utilized in a transparent and equitable manner and through the Iraqi budget including > to satisfy outstanding obligations against the Development Fund for Iraq, that the > arrangements for the depositing of proceeds from export sales of petroleum, > petroleum products, and natural gas established in paragraph 20 of resolution 1483 > (2003) shall continue to apply, that the International Advisory and Monitoring Board > shall continue its activities in monitoring the Development Fund for Iraq and shall > include as an additional full voting member a duly qualified individual designated > by the Government of Iraq and that appropriate arrangements shall be made for the > continuation of deposits of the proceeds referred to in paragraph 21 of resolution > 1483 (2003); > 2. Decides further that the provisions in the above paragraph for the deposit > of proceeds into the Development Fund for Iraq and for the role of the IAMB shall > be reviewed at the request of the Transitional Government of Iraq or twelve months > from the date of this resolution, and shall expire upon the completion of the political > process set out in paragraph four above; > 3. Decides that, in connection with the dissolution of the Coalition > Provisional Authority, the Interim Government of Iraq and its successors shall > assume the rights, responsibilities and obligations relating to the Oil-for-Food > Programme that were transferred to the Authority, including all operational > responsibility for the Programme and any obligations undertaken by the Authority in > connection with such responsibility, and responsibility for ensuring independently > authenticated confirmation that goods have been delivered, and further decides that, > following a 120-day transition period from the date of adoption of this resolution, > the Interim Government of Iraq and its successors shall assume responsibility for > certifying delivery of goods under previously prioritized contracts, and that such > certification shall be deemed to constitute the independent authentication required > for the release of funds associated with such contracts, consulting as appropriate to > ensure the smooth implementation of these arrangements; ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-unanimously-adopts-resolution-on-iraq/249408/38 "2004-06-11T18:09:39Z")
> [@Early Out](#): > > _Major premise_: No rebuilding of structure without fire. > _Minor premise_: No fire without arson. > _Conclusion_: unanimous approval of rebuilding = unanimous approval of arson. Ob-fus-ca-tion. May I ask, who is the _rebuilder_ here? The same person as an _arsonist_, no? The proper comparison is a virtuous citizen taking law into his own hands, arresting a crook, scattering crook’s henchmen and presenting corrupt and impotent city fathers (UN) with a new reality, in the face of which they have no choice but to approve. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-unanimously-adopts-resolution-on-iraq/249408/39 "2004-06-11T18:18:42Z")
> [@Cronos1](#): > > The UN support for continued maintenance of foreign forces in Iraq is based on the realization that without a strong, well-coordinated military the country would fall further into chaos. Nothing there is a ringing endorsement of Bush or an admission what the US did there a year ago, in spite of international objection, was right. > > During the G8 summit Bush came up short when wanted to get debt relief for Iraq, and his proposed use of NATO forces was also rebuffed. No “ringing endorsement” of Bush by UN is ever to be expected, of course. More impotent whining is to be expected. So, they “support for continued maintenance of foreign forces in Iraq” but “rebuff” proposed use of NATO forces? Is that UN way of saying “go on doing what you were doing”? ---
**Author:** ![Cronos1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/977dab/32.png) [@Cronos1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cronos1)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-unanimously-adopts-resolution-on-iraq/249408/40 "2004-06-11T18:52:23Z")
I don’t understand your point about “impotent whining” is to be expected. If what UN does is so inconsequential to you, why weigh-in on the importance of the unanimity of the vote? Secondly, this isn’t their way of saying “keep doing what you’re doing.” It is them saying we agree that you need to get the hell out of there, since you brought up the topic in the UN. And, no, this is your mess, YOU clean it up. We aren’t sending moeny nor troops to do what you shouldn’t have done in the first place. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-unanimously-adopts-resolution-on-iraq/249408.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-unanimously-adopts-resolution-on-iraq/249408.md?page=3)