There Is No al Qaeda In Iraq

[Faun]

The invasion was not illegal but approved by multiple UN resolutions and was a consequence of SADDAM's failure to comply with the 1991 ceacefire, other multiple UN resolutions and the crumbling of the sanctions and embargo meant to contain him.

Bullshit. The only U.N. approval to the invasion came after Bush already invaded Iraq. You should know this since had there actually been U.N. approval, Bush a) would not have gone to the U.N. seeking a vote for approval; which he backed down from asking for once he realized that the U.K. was the only other country which was going to give him their vote. b) would have had a U.N. sanctioned coalition to invade Iraq and would not have had to form his own coalition. c) would not have had to lie about why he decided to invade.

1. UN resolution 678 which was signed in 1990 is the starting legal basis for the invasion in 2003. That's because Iraq was required to comply with the UN or face the use of all means necessary to make it comply. In addition, this was applied to all subsequent UN resolutions.

2. In November 2002, resolution 1441, reaffirmed the language and responsibilities and penalties Iraq faced from resolution 678 and threatened serious consequences.

So in November 2002, the Bush Administration already had two UN resolutions that authorized the use of military force to bring Iraq until compliance with the UN resolutions and the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement all of which SADDAM was in violation of.

That is completely fucking demented. Bush had zero U.N. resolutions providing him U.N. sanctioned authorization to use military force against Iraq. But this is what I except from the idiot who thinks it was Democrats, and not Nixon, who ended [our involvement in] the Vietnam war.

UN resolution 678 authorize member states to forcibly remove Iraq from Kuwait, which was accomplished in 1991. So there is no U.N. authorization for Dubya there. The violation of the cease fire you refer to was nothing more than a U.N. declaration that Iraq had not provided a full and complete disclosure of their weapons as prohibited by U.N. Resolution #687. And while it warned Iraq of serious consequences if they failed to comply, unlike 678, it did not authorize military intervention. And it certainly did not leave it up to Bush to define what was meant by, "serious consequences." Furthermore, as in all U.N. resolutions, it concluded with leaving discretion of 1441 to the U.N. to decide on the next step. It in no way transferred that power to Bush.

There were some European members who felt uncomfortable about this, so in an attempt to make them feel comfortable, the Bush administration set out to make another more explicit resolution. That attempt was abandoned though when it was found that certain countries were only going to use it as an attempt to reverse their own previous positions on Iraq and block Bush.

More Bullshit. They didn't "feel uncomfortable." Their own intelligence agencies did not have any proof that Hussein still had any WMD and they weren't taking the U.S.'s word for it. And it turned out, they were right not to. In the end, both the U.S. and the U.K. ultimately admitted their intelligence was seriously flawed and not reliable.

• "Fears are one thing, hard facts are another. Russia does not have in its possession any trustworthy data that supports the existence of nuclear weapons or any other weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and we have not received any such information from our partners yet. This fact also has been supported by information sent by the CIA to the U.S. Congress." ~ Putin
  
  
• AMANPOUR: "Do you believe that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction; for instance, chemical or biological weapons?"
  
  CHIRAC: "Well, I don’t know. I have no evidence to support that... It seems that there are no nuclear weapons - no nuclear weapons program. That is something that the inspectors seem to be sure of."
  
• "Of course it is important for Germany what resolutions the United Nations adopt, but these arguments — these three — they remain my own, the ones that make me say: Hands off. Especially because, as I said before, the evidence appears to be highly dubious." ~ Schroeder

Given that the United States and other member nations already had legal authority under UN resolutions 678 and 1441 to use military force against Iraq to bring it into compliance, the Bush administration stopped the work on the new resolution. It was never needed from a legal standpoint and was only considered as a way of creating more support than they already had at the time.

That is based on your false premise that 678 and 1441 provided Bush authorization to invade Iraq. Neither one did.

The coaltion that went into Iraq was sanctioned by the UN just as all military action against Iraq since 1991 had been sanctioned by the UN through resolution 678. Resolution 1441 passed in November 2002 was another resolution supporting military action.

Now you're simply flat out lying or delusional. Who cares which one? Either way, there is absolutely nothing in 1441 sanctioning military force. Nothing. Military force is not even mentioned. You are basing that on your interpretation of, "serious consequences," since there is no authorization for military force. But you lose this argument 3 different ways ... 1) It was up to the U.N., and not George Bush, to define what was meant by, "serious consequences;"

2) "Serious consequences," however that would be defined by the U.N., could have been carried out had Iraq been found in violation of 1441, which the U.N. never had the chance to do since Bush force the U.N. inspectors out of Iraq before they completed their mission. Despite being told by the U.N. that they found none of the WMD Bush was claiming were there; and despite the U.S. not providing the U.N. with any information as to where they might be (since they weren't actually there); and despite the U.N. pleading with him for more time to finish their inspections, Bush invaded anyway; and

3) Bush even sought a U.N. vote on authorizing military force. Something he would not have done, or needed to do, if "serious consequences" gave him authorization to use military force.

Once Saddam was removed in April 2003, the UN passed resolution 1483 in June 2003 approving the coalition occupation of Iraq.

If the invasion were illegal or the UN did not sanction it, the UN never would have approved the occupation of Iraq by foreign troops. Instead, it would have done what it did when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990. The UN passed a resolution condemning the Iraq invasion of Kuwait. It passed another resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of Iraqi troops from Kuwait. It then passed multiple resolutions sanctioning Iraq and then finally passed resolutions authorizing military action against Iraq.

1483 approved of Iraq forming a new government and the coalition transferring power to it. It also lifted sanctions imposed on Iraq by earlier U.N. resolutions. In no way, shape, or form did it approve of the invasion. It was a response of the invasion to deal with the aftermath; not an approval of it.

Do the UN EVER attempt to pass any resolutions against the United States condemning it for the invasion and calling for the immediate withdrawal of US troops? NO

Instead several months after the US invasion and overthrow of Saddam, the UN passed a resolution approving the coalition occupation of Iraq.

Umm, what would be the point since the U.S. and U.K. would veto any such resolution? Causing Bush to back down from seeking a U.N. vote to invade Iraq because the U.N. didn't support the invasion sufficiently provided the voice of the U.N. that they did not approve of it.

 

[Faun]

The invasion was not illegal but approved by multiple UN resolutions and was a consequence of SADDAM's failure to comply with the 1991 ceacefire, other multiple UN resolutions and the crumbling of the sanctions and embargo meant to contain him.

Far more people would have been maimed, murdered and displaced if SADDAM had been allowed to remain in power. SADDAM's history is proof of that. The crumbling of sanctions to contain him is more proof. The means of containing him the only other viable policy option against Saddam was gone.

Yes, military action has its costs. But overall the world is far safer and more secure now that Saddam is gone. Saddam can no longer start more wars that would have killed, maimed and disiplaced far more people than his previous wars already had.

AGAIN, we would not be in this situation if SADDAM had not decided in 1990 to invade and ANNEX KUWAIT. The first time another country had been invaded and annexed since HITLER did it in the 1940s!

By the same reasoning we would not be in this situation if the CIA hadn't helped Saddam and his party come to power in 1963.

The US/UK invasion of Iraq was an unlawful War of Aggression since the UN Charter forbids wars of choice and expressly outlaws all use of force except when explicitly authorized by the UNSC or when an armed attack is immanent.

Unlawful war requires US military to refuse all war orders and arrest those who issue them.

Saddam and his party did not come to power in 1963. In fact, Saddam was put in jail in 1964. Saddam and the bath party did not come to power until the summer of 1968, long after the CIA had helped Iraqi's remove Qasim from power in 1963.

The UNSC authorized military action against Iraq in 1990 as well as subsequent military action against Iraq if if failed to comply with UN resolutions and the Gulf War ceacefire agreement.

All US military action against Iraq from 1990 through 2011 has been authorized through multiple UN resolutions passed by the UNSC. The UNSC also approved the coalition occupation of Iraq starting in June 2003 with resolution 1483.

The UNSC never passed and NEVER attempted any resolutions condemning US military action in Iraq or calling for a US military withdrawal as it did when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990.

There has never been a war with more written legal backing prior to its initiation than the US led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

That is complete and utter bullshit. The U.N. did not approve of Bush invading Iraq in 2003. There was no such vote on it since Bush backed down from asking for it once he learned the vote would not support his invasion.

So Bush lied. He said, "no matter what the whip count is, we’re calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations." So despite insisting he was going to press the U.N. for a vote, "no matter what the whip count is," he lied and didn't ask for that vote because he knew the "whip count" was against him.

And approving of the coalition's efforts after the fact because they wanted to ensure that was not an occupation and that a transfer of power to a newly formed government in Iraq would take place, does not equate to approval of the invasion beforehand.

 

[georgephillip]

The invasion was not illegal but approved by multiple UN resolutions and was a consequence of SADDAM's failure to comply with the 1991 ceacefire, other multiple UN resolutions and the crumbling of the sanctions and embargo meant to contain him.

Far more people would have been maimed, murdered and displaced if SADDAM had been allowed to remain in power. SADDAM's history is proof of that. The crumbling of sanctions to contain him is more proof. The means of containing him the only other viable policy option against Saddam was gone.

Yes, military action has its costs. But overall the world is far safer and more secure now that Saddam is gone. Saddam can no longer start more wars that would have killed, maimed and disiplaced far more people than his previous wars already had.

AGAIN, we would not be in this situation if SADDAM had not decided in 1990 to invade and ANNEX KUWAIT. The first time another country had been invaded and annexed since HITLER did it in the 1940s!

By the same reasoning we would not be in this situation if the CIA hadn't helped Saddam and his party come to power in 1963.

The US/UK invasion of Iraq was an unlawful War of Aggression since the UN Charter forbids wars of choice and expressly outlaws all use of force except when explicitly authorized by the UNSC or when an armed attack is immanent.

Unlawful war requires US military to refuse all war orders and arrest those who issue them.

Saddam and his party did not come to power in 1963. In fact, Saddam was put in jail in 1964. Saddam and the bath party did not come to power until the summer of 1968, long after the CIA had helped Iraqi's remove Qasim from power in 1963.

The UNSC authorized military action against Iraq in 1990 as well as subsequent military action against Iraq if if failed to comply with UN resolutions and the Gulf War ceacefire agreement.

All US military action against Iraq from 1990 through 2011 has been authorized through multiple UN resolutions passed by the UNSC. The UNSC also approved the coalition occupation of Iraq starting in June 2003 with resolution 1483.

The UNSC never passed and NEVER attempted any resolutions condemning US military action in Iraq or calling for a US military withdrawal as it did when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990.

There has never been a war with more written legal backing prior to its initiation than the US led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Saddam and his party shared power briefly as a result of the CIA-orchestrated coup in 1963

"Qasim was overthrown by the Ba'athist coup of February 8, 1963, motivated by fear of communist influence and state control over the petroleum sector.

"This coup was allegedly carried out with the backing of the British government and the American CIA.[33][34][35]

"The best direct evidence that the U.S. was complicit is the memo from NSC staff member Robert Komer to President John F. Kennedy on the night of the coup, February 8, 1963. The last paragraph reads:

"'We will make informal friendly noises as soon as we can find out whom to talk with, and ought to recognize as soon as we’re sure these guys are firmly in the saddle. CIA had excellent reports on the plotting, but I doubt either they or UK should claim much credit for it.'"

Abd al-Karim Qasim - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Saddam's route to the Presidential Palace took a detour through prison; however, the CIA gave him his initial start:

"On February 8, a military coup in Baghdad, in which the Baath Party played a leading role, overthrew Qassim.

"Support for the conspirators was limited.

"In the first hours of fighting, they had only nine tanks under their control. The Baath Party had just 850 active members.

"But Qassim ignored warnings about the impending coup.

"What tipped the balance against him was the involvement of the United States.

"He had taken Iraq out of the anti-Soviet Baghdad Pact.

"In 1961, he threatened to occupy Kuwait and nationalized part of the Iraq Petroleum Company (IPC), the foreign oil consortium that exploited Iraq's oil.

"In retrospect, it was the ClAs favorite coup. We really had the ts crossed on what was happening, James Critchfield, then head of the CIA in the Middle East, told us. We regarded it as a great victory.

"Iraqi participants later confirmed American involvement. We came to power on a CIA train, admitted Ali Saleh Sa'adi, the Baath Party secretary general who was about to institute an unprecedented reign of terror.

"CIA assistance reportedly included coordination of the coup plotters from the agency's station inside the U.S. embassy in Baghdad as well as a clandestine radio station in Kuwait and solicitation of advice from around the Middle East on who on the left should be eliminated once the coup was successful."

Regime Change: How the CIA put Saddam's Party in Power

 

[irosie91]

it gets more and more idiotic-------grown people who do not grasp the first page of
the LOGIC 101 course-----CORRELATION DOES NOT PROVE CAUSATION

 

[georgephillip]

it gets more and more idiotic-------grown people who do not grasp the first page of
the LOGIC 101 course-----CORRELATION DOES NOT PROVE CAUSATION

"Qasim was overthrown by the Ba'athist coup of February 8, 1963, motivated by fear of communist influence and state control over the petroleum sector.

"This coup was allegedly carried out with the backing of the British government and the American CIA.[33][34][35]

"The best direct evidence that the U.S. was complicit is the memo from NSC staff member Robert Komer to President John F. Kennedy on the night of the coup, February 8, 1963. The last paragraph reads:
"'We will make informal friendly noises as soon as we can find out whom to talk with, and ought to recognize as soon as we’re sure these guys are firmly in the saddle. CIA had excellent reports on the plotting, but I doubt either they or UK should claim much credit for it.[36]'"

"Qasim was given a short trial and he was shot soon after. Later, footage of his execution was broadcast to prove he was dead.[37] Between 1,500 and 5,000 Iraqis were killed in the fighting from February 8–10, 1963, and in the house-to-house hunt for 'communists' that immediately followed."

Do you revel in your racist Logic?

Abd al-Karim Qasim - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[U2Edge]

Bullshit. The only U.N. approval to the invasion came after Bush already invaded Iraq. You should know this since had there actually been U.N. approval, Bush a) would not have gone to the U.N. seeking a vote for approval; which he backed down from asking for once he realized that the U.K. was the only other country which was going to give him their vote. b) would have had a U.N. sanctioned coalition to invade Iraq and would not have had to form his own coalition. c) would not have had to lie about why he decided to invade.

.

Umm, what would be the point since the U.S. and U.K. would veto any such resolution? Causing Bush to back down from seeking a U.N. vote to invade Iraq because the U.N. didn't support the invasion sufficiently provided the voice of the U.N. that they did not approve of it.

UN member states attempt to pass various resolutions against Israel every year which the United States often vetoes. But they do it to go on record as condemning Israeli policy. Certainly, if member states really seriously felt that the invasion was illegal and a violation, there should have at least been an attempt at a resolution to condemn the invasion and call for the withdrawal of US troops. There wasn't any of that.

Then resolution 1483, did authorize coalition members to be the occupying powers in Iraq. Iraq was not handed back its sovereignty until the summer of 2004. Every year since 2003, the coaltion members had to get UN authority to remain in Iraq. If the invasion was illegal the UN would not be granting legal permission for foreign troops to be occupying another country's territory.


Now, going back to resolution 678. That was passed in 1990. It authorized the use of all means necessary to get Iraq out of Kuwait as well as to get it to comply with all UN resolutions and any subsequent resolutions passed. The subsequent resolutions phrase in 678 is part of the reason why 678 is connected to resolution 1441 passed in November 2002. Resolution 1441 also says that it reaffirms resolution 678. So resolution 678 was still important in 2003 and still being sited.

In addition, from 1991 through 2002, the United States bombed Iraq every single year. In particular, it launched operation Desert Fox in December 1998 which featured some of the heaviest bombing of Iraq and the largest use of Cruise missiles against Iraq in its history. All of these military actions were consider LEGAL thanks to resolution 678 passed in 1990. Resolution 678 was sited each time the United States used forces against Iraq in the late 1990s.

Given, that resolution 678 continued to be a legal basis for continued US military action throughout all of the 1990s, it would not suddenly stop being a legal basis for military action in 2003.

The purpose of resolution 1441 passed in November 2002 was simply to restate the case and reaffirm the prior resolutions against Iraq. It was written and passed more for political reasons than legal ones.

While it is true that resolution 1441 does not have the term "military force" within it, neither does resolution 678 which authorized the first Gulf War. The term "use of all means necessary" appears in 678, but "military force" does not.

The reason is that the Soviet Union rejected a draft that had the term "military force" in it, so the United States came up with "use of all means necessary".

That can definitely be considered to have authorized military force just as "Serious Consequences" does in 1441.

But it is true that it can be looked at as being "open to interpretation".

So yes, you can argue that 1441 did not authorize the invasion or military action, but you could also then argue that resolution 678 did not authorize the 1991 Gulf War.

Again, both resolutions do not have the term "military force" within them.

But since resolution 678 was used and sited as the legal basis for the first Gulf War, and US military action against Iraq in every year of the 1990s, plus that it was reaffirmed in resolution 1441, it is clear that the serious consequences is authorizing military action and 1441 did authorize military action against Iraq.

 

[U2Edge]

By the same reasoning we would not be in this situation if the CIA hadn't helped Saddam and his party come to power in 1963.

The US/UK invasion of Iraq was an unlawful War of Aggression since the UN Charter forbids wars of choice and expressly outlaws all use of force except when explicitly authorized by the UNSC or when an armed attack is immanent.

Unlawful war requires US military to refuse all war orders and arrest those who issue them.

Saddam and his party did not come to power in 1963. In fact, Saddam was put in jail in 1964. Saddam and the bath party did not come to power until the summer of 1968, long after the CIA had helped Iraqi's remove Qasim from power in 1963.

The UNSC authorized military action against Iraq in 1990 as well as subsequent military action against Iraq if if failed to comply with UN resolutions and the Gulf War ceacefire agreement.

All US military action against Iraq from 1990 through 2011 has been authorized through multiple UN resolutions passed by the UNSC. The UNSC also approved the coalition occupation of Iraq starting in June 2003 with resolution 1483.

The UNSC never passed and NEVER attempted any resolutions condemning US military action in Iraq or calling for a US military withdrawal as it did when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990.

There has never been a war with more written legal backing prior to its initiation than the US led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

That is complete and utter bullshit. The U.N. did not approve of Bush invading Iraq in 2003. There was no such vote on it since Bush backed down from asking for it once he learned the vote would not support his invasion.

So Bush lied. He said, "no matter what the whip count is, we’re calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations." So despite insisting he was going to press the U.N. for a vote, "no matter what the whip count is," he lied and didn't ask for that vote because he knew the "whip count" was against him.

And approving of the coalition's efforts after the fact because they wanted to ensure that was not an occupation and that a transfer of power to a newly formed government in Iraq would take place, does not equate to approval of the invasion beforehand.

Changing ones mind about presenting a new resolution to the UN is NOT lying.

Approving the stationing of foreign troops on another country's soil is indeed approval of the way in which they arrived there.

The United States got approval from the UN to have troops in Iraq every year. If the invasion was illegal, the UN would not grant such approval and would be calling for the withdrawal of US troops and condemning the action that brought them there in the first place.

There was NEVER any attempt at a UN resolution to condemn the invasion in 2003 or call for the withdrawal of coalition troops. Instead, the opposite happened!

 

[U2Edge]

By the same reasoning we would not be in this situation if the CIA hadn't helped Saddam and his party come to power in 1963.

The US/UK invasion of Iraq was an unlawful War of Aggression since the UN Charter forbids wars of choice and expressly outlaws all use of force except when explicitly authorized by the UNSC or when an armed attack is immanent.

Unlawful war requires US military to refuse all war orders and arrest those who issue them.

Saddam and his party did not come to power in 1963. In fact, Saddam was put in jail in 1964. Saddam and the bath party did not come to power until the summer of 1968, long after the CIA had helped Iraqi's remove Qasim from power in 1963.

The UNSC authorized military action against Iraq in 1990 as well as subsequent military action against Iraq if if failed to comply with UN resolutions and the Gulf War ceacefire agreement.

All US military action against Iraq from 1990 through 2011 has been authorized through multiple UN resolutions passed by the UNSC. The UNSC also approved the coalition occupation of Iraq starting in June 2003 with resolution 1483.

The UNSC never passed and NEVER attempted any resolutions condemning US military action in Iraq or calling for a US military withdrawal as it did when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990.

There has never been a war with more written legal backing prior to its initiation than the US led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Saddam and his party shared power briefly as a result of the CIA-orchestrated coup in 1963

"Qasim was overthrown by the Ba'athist coup of February 8, 1963, motivated by fear of communist influence and state control over the petroleum sector.

"This coup was allegedly carried out with the backing of the British government and the American CIA.[33][34][35]

"The best direct evidence that the U.S. was complicit is the memo from NSC staff member Robert Komer to President John F. Kennedy on the night of the coup, February 8, 1963. The last paragraph reads:

"'We will make informal friendly noises as soon as we can find out whom to talk with, and ought to recognize as soon as we’re sure these guys are firmly in the saddle. CIA had excellent reports on the plotting, but I doubt either they or UK should claim much credit for it.'"

Abd al-Karim Qasim - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Saddam's route to the Presidential Palace took a detour through prison; however, the CIA gave him his initial start:

"On February 8, a military coup in Baghdad, in which the Baath Party played a leading role, overthrew Qassim.

"Support for the conspirators was limited.

"In the first hours of fighting, they had only nine tanks under their control. The Baath Party had just 850 active members.

"But Qassim ignored warnings about the impending coup.

"What tipped the balance against him was the involvement of the United States.

"He had taken Iraq out of the anti-Soviet Baghdad Pact.

"In 1961, he threatened to occupy Kuwait and nationalized part of the Iraq Petroleum Company (IPC), the foreign oil consortium that exploited Iraq's oil.

"In retrospect, it was the ClAs favorite coup. We really had the ts crossed on what was happening, James Critchfield, then head of the CIA in the Middle East, told us. We regarded it as a great victory.

"Iraqi participants later confirmed American involvement. We came to power on a CIA train, admitted Ali Saleh Sa'adi, the Baath Party secretary general who was about to institute an unprecedented reign of terror.

"CIA assistance reportedly included coordination of the coup plotters from the agency's station inside the U.S. embassy in Baghdad as well as a clandestine radio station in Kuwait and solicitation of advice from around the Middle East on who on the left should be eliminated once the coup was successful."

Regime Change: How the CIA put Saddam's Party in Power

Sorry, but no one really cared and few even knew about 26 year old Saddam in 1963. Saddam DID NOT COME TO POWER IN 1963. Arif did and he arrested the Bath Party members including SADDAM.

The Bath Parties rise to power in Iraq along with SADDAMS would not happen until many years later in the summer of 1968.

Again, you are making connections where essentially none exist.

Saddam's rise to power in Iraq occurs in the summer of 1968, not in 1960, 1961, or 1963.

 

[Faun]

.

Umm, what would be the point since the U.S. and U.K. would veto any such resolution? Causing Bush to back down from seeking a U.N. vote to invade Iraq because the U.N. didn't support the invasion sufficiently provided the voice of the U.N. that they did not approve of it.

UN member states attempt to pass various resolutions against Israel every year which the United States often vetoes. But they do it to go on record as condemning Israeli policy. Certainly, if member states really seriously felt that the invasion was illegal and a violation, there should have at least been an attempt at a resolution to condemn the invasion and call for the withdrawal of US troops. There wasn't any of that.

voting on a resolution against a non-permanent member is not the same as one against a permanent member. There's absolutely no point in a resolution against a permanent member state which has veto power.

Then resolution 1483, did authorize coalition members to be the occupying powers in Iraq. Iraq was not handed back its sovereignty until the summer of 2004. Every year since 2003, the coaltion members had to get UN authority to remain in Iraq. If the invasion was illegal the UN would not be granting legal permission for foreign troops to be occupying another country's territory.

I'm not saying the invasion was illegal. I am saying it wasn't sanctioned by the U.N. That's why Bush had to form his own coalition. That's why Bush lied about asking for a vote on the matter. That the U.N. supported the coalition effort after the invasion does not translate to the U.N. supporting the invasion itself. At that point, the U.N. had no choice but to support the coalition's efforts to stabilize Iraq; the invasion already occurred anyway.

Now, going back to resolution 678. That was passed in 1990. It authorized the use of all means necessary to get Iraq out of Kuwait as well as to get it to comply with all UN resolutions and any subsequent resolutions passed. The subsequent resolutions phrase in 678 is part of the reason why 678 is connected to resolution 1441 passed in November 2002. Resolution 1441 also says that it reaffirms resolution 678. So resolution 678 was still important in 2003 and still being sited.

In addition, from 1991 through 2002, the United States bombed Iraq every single year. In particular, it launched operation Desert Fox in December 1998 which featured some of the heaviest bombing of Iraq and the largest use of Cruise missiles against Iraq in its history. All of these military actions were consider LEGAL thanks to resolution 678 passed in 1990. Resolution 678 was sited each time the United States used forces against Iraq in the late 1990s.

Launching Cruise missiles is not the same as a full scale military invasion. And the bombings were typically justified. Such as with operation Desert Fox which was because Hussein had the American weapons inspectors thrown out of Iraq. There was no such justification when Bush invaded Iraq. At that time, the U.N. inspectors were back in Iraq and finding nothing.

Given, that resolution 678 continued to be a legal basis for continued US military action throughout all of the 1990s, it would not suddenly stop being a legal basis for military action in 2003.

There's no such justification. Even if you try to make the wild leap from 678, which was about removing Hussein from Kuwait, to 1441, Hussein would have had to have been in violation of 1441, which was never established by the U.N. And again, as in every U.N. resolution, the U.N. "remained seized of the matter," not Bush.

The purpose of resolution 1441 passed in November 2002 was simply to restate the case and reaffirm the prior resolutions against Iraq. It was written and passed more for political reasons than legal ones.

While it is true that resolution 1441 does not have the term "military force" within it, neither does resolution 678 which authorized the first Gulf War. The term "use of all means necessary" appears in 678, but "military force" does not.

At least 678 provided military authorization in the wording, "all means necessary," 1441 offers no such authorization and Iraq was never found to be in violation of 1441. He couldn't be since Bush had the weapons inspectors pulled out of Iraq so he could invade.

The reason is that the Soviet Union rejected a draft that had the term "military force" in it, so the United States came up with "use of all means necessary".

That can definitely be considered to have authorized military force just as "Serious Consequences" does in 1441.

But it is true that it can be looked at as being "open to interpretation".

So yes, you can argue that 1441 did not authorize the invasion or military action, but you could also then argue that resolution 678 did not authorize the 1991 Gulf War.

Again, both resolutions do not have the term "military force" within them.

But since resolution 678 was used and sited as the legal basis for the first Gulf War, and US military action against Iraq in every year of the 1990s, plus that it was reaffirmed in resolution 1441, it is clear that the serious consequences is authorizing military action and 1441 did authorize military action against Iraq.

And again, the U.N. never declared Iraq was in violation of 1441.

 

[Faun]

Saddam and his party did not come to power in 1963. In fact, Saddam was put in jail in 1964. Saddam and the bath party did not come to power until the summer of 1968, long after the CIA had helped Iraqi's remove Qasim from power in 1963.

The UNSC authorized military action against Iraq in 1990 as well as subsequent military action against Iraq if if failed to comply with UN resolutions and the Gulf War ceacefire agreement.

All US military action against Iraq from 1990 through 2011 has been authorized through multiple UN resolutions passed by the UNSC. The UNSC also approved the coalition occupation of Iraq starting in June 2003 with resolution 1483.

The UNSC never passed and NEVER attempted any resolutions condemning US military action in Iraq or calling for a US military withdrawal as it did when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990.

There has never been a war with more written legal backing prior to its initiation than the US led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

That is complete and utter bullshit. The U.N. did not approve of Bush invading Iraq in 2003. There was no such vote on it since Bush backed down from asking for it once he learned the vote would not support his invasion.

So Bush lied. He said, "no matter what the whip count is, we’re calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations." So despite insisting he was going to press the U.N. for a vote, "no matter what the whip count is," he lied and didn't ask for that vote because he knew the "whip count" was against him.

And approving of the coalition's efforts after the fact because they wanted to ensure that was not an occupation and that a transfer of power to a newly formed government in Iraq would take place, does not equate to approval of the invasion beforehand.

Changing ones mind about presenting a new resolution to the UN is NOT lying.

Bullshit.

He said, "no matter what the whip count is, we’re calling for the vote." Then didn't call of the vote because the "whip count" wasn't on his side.

That's a lie.

But your Bush fluffing is duly noted.

Approving the stationing of foreign troops on another country's soil is indeed approval of the way in which they arrived there.

The United States got approval from the UN to have troops in Iraq every year. If the invasion was illegal, the UN would not grant such approval and would be calling for the withdrawal of US troops and condemning the action that brought them there in the first place.

There was NEVER any attempt at a UN resolution to condemn the invasion in 2003 or call for the withdrawal of coalition troops. Instead, the opposite happened!

Approving of the mission after the fact is in no way approving of the invasion. The U.N. had no choice but to approve of the mission, the invasion already occurred. Condemning the invasion would be of no use. At that point, the U.N. could do nothing but let the U.S. stay to establish a new government.

As far as approval for the invasion, the member states already expressed their position prior to the invasion. Most were against military force and in favor of letting the U.N. handle the matter with weapons inspectors.

And again, Bush would not have backed away from putting the U.N. to a vote to support a military invasion had the U.N. supported it.

 

[U2Edge]

Umm, what would be the point since the U.S. and U.K. would veto any such resolution? Causing Bush to back down from seeking a U.N. vote to invade Iraq because the U.N. didn't support the invasion sufficiently provided the voice of the U.N. that they did not approve of it.

UN member states attempt to pass various resolutions against Israel every year which the United States often vetoes. But they do it to go on record as condemning Israeli policy. Certainly, if member states really seriously felt that the invasion was illegal and a violation, there should have at least been an attempt at a resolution to condemn the invasion and call for the withdrawal of US troops. There wasn't any of that.

voting on a resolution against a non-permanent member is not the same as one against a permanent member. There's absolutely no point in a resolution against a permanent member state which has veto power.


I'm not saying the invasion was illegal. I am saying it wasn't sanctioned by the U.N. That's why Bush had to form his own coalition. That's why Bush lied about asking for a vote on the matter. That the U.N. supported the coalition effort after the invasion does not translate to the U.N. supporting the invasion itself. At that point, the U.N. had no choice but to support the coalition's efforts to stabilize Iraq; the invasion already occurred anyway.


Launching Cruise missiles is not the same as a full scale military invasion. And the bombings were typically justified. Such as with operation Desert Fox which was because Hussein had the American weapons inspectors thrown out of Iraq. There was no such justification when Bush invaded Iraq. At that time, the U.N. inspectors were back in Iraq and finding nothing.


There's no such justification. Even if you try to make the wild leap from 678, which was about removing Hussein from Kuwait, to 1441, Hussein would have had to have been in violation of 1441, which was never established by the U.N. And again, as in every U.N. resolution, the U.N. "remained seized of the matter," not Bush.

The purpose of resolution 1441 passed in November 2002 was simply to restate the case and reaffirm the prior resolutions against Iraq. It was written and passed more for political reasons than legal ones.

While it is true that resolution 1441 does not have the term "military force" within it, neither does resolution 678 which authorized the first Gulf War. The term "use of all means necessary" appears in 678, but "military force" does not.

At least 678 provided military authorization in the wording, "all means necessary," 1441 offers no such authorization and Iraq was never found to be in violation of 1441. He couldn't be since Bush had the weapons inspectors pulled out of Iraq so he could invade.

The reason is that the Soviet Union rejected a draft that had the term "military force" in it, so the United States came up with "use of all means necessary".

That can definitely be considered to have authorized military force just as "Serious Consequences" does in 1441.

But it is true that it can be looked at as being "open to interpretation".

So yes, you can argue that 1441 did not authorize the invasion or military action, but you could also then argue that resolution 678 did not authorize the 1991 Gulf War.

Again, both resolutions do not have the term "military force" within them.

But since resolution 678 was used and sited as the legal basis for the first Gulf War, and US military action against Iraq in every year of the 1990s, plus that it was reaffirmed in resolution 1441, it is clear that the serious consequences is authorizing military action and 1441 did authorize military action against Iraq.

And again, the U.N. never declared Iraq was in violation of 1441.

The UN declares in resolution 1441 that Iraq has failed to comply with numerous UN resolutions passed under chapter VII rules of the United Nations. So Iraq is already in violation of multiple UN resolutions with regards to the disarmament of WMD, as well as Iraq's relationship with Kuwait and what it was required to do after the ceacefire agreement was signed in terms of returning stolen items to Kuwait and locating thousands of missing Kuwaiti's who were still missing as well as paying for damage and clean done by lighting hundreds of oil wells on fire and dumping oil into the Persian Gulf.

Then there is the issue of Iraq illegally selling oil on the black market, billions of dollars worth. Taking UN humanitarian aid and instead of giving it to Iraqi's reselling it too other countries. The list of violations is many, and resolution 678 approves military action to bring Iraq into compliance. Resolution 678 was not just a resolution covering the removal of Iraqi troops from Kuwait. It was FAR more than that.

At least 678 provided military authorization in the wording, "all means necessary," 1441 offers no such authorization and Iraq was never found to be in violation of 1441. He couldn't be since Bush had the weapons inspectors pulled out of Iraq so he could invade.

"All Means Necessary" is no more military authorization than "Serious Consequences". Again the words military force may not have been used in 1441, but their not used in 678 either. In any event, 678 is REAFFIRMED in the body of 1441.

Resolution 1441 itself mentions that Iraq is in Violation of multiple UN resolutions and the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement.

Iraq is already in violation of the resolutions. The inspectors are there to see if Saddam can account for missing stocks of WMD and show that he is in compliance with the resolutions. Saddam failed to do that, which is why the inspectors were pulled out. Saddam failed to comply with any UN resolutions while the inspectors were in Iraq from November 2002 to March 2003.

There's no such justification. Even if you try to make the wild leap from 678, which was about removing Hussein from Kuwait, to 1441, Hussein would have had to have been in violation of 1441, which was never established by the U.N. And again, as in every U.N. resolution, the U.N. "remained seized of the matter," not Bush.

False. There is such a justification. Resolution 678 was sited every single year in the 1990s when the United States would bomb Iraq. 1441 states that Iraq is in violation of multiple UN resolutions.

Sure, the UN was seized of the matter and authorized military action against Iraq do to its non-compliance with multiple UN resolutions. The approval for military action was there every year from 1990 onward. Resolution 678 was repeatedly sited every year from 1990 onward when military action against Iraq occurred, which it did every year from 1992 through 2002!

Launching Cruise missiles is not the same as a full scale military invasion. And the bombings were typically justified. Such as with operation Desert Fox which was because Hussein had the American weapons inspectors thrown out of Iraq. There was no such justification when Bush invaded Iraq. At that time, the U.N. inspectors were back in Iraq and finding nothing.

None of the UN resolutions makes any distinctions between certain military actions and others. There is no distinction made between air strikes, cruise missle strikes, raids, or full scale ground invasion. None at all.

That's why resolution 678 continued to be sited throughout the 1990s when bombing would occur. It continued to be the legal basis for any and all military action against Iraq!

Oh, and in December 1998, the inspectors were not thrown out, they were pulled out for their safety because military action was about to begin. SADDAM did not let them come back in until late 2002.

There was a very long list of justifications for invading Iraq and removing Saddam in 2003 from his illegal selling oil on the black market, the crumbling of sanctions and the embargo designed to try and contain him, the threat of him rebuilding is conventional non- conventional military capabilities now that sanctions and the embargo had crumbled, as well the more traditional well known justifications from his failure to verifiably disarm of all WMD and any WMD program related activities, his failure to account for the location and or dismantlement of past WMD, his failure to repay Kuwait for the damage he did to the country when he illegally invaded and then annexed it, and the failure to account for thousands of missing Kuwaiti citizens. Then there is also things like firing on US military aircraft and US military personal. Sending small groups of soldiers back into Kuwait to steal military equipment left in the desert, illegally reselling UN humanitarian aid meant for Iraqi civilians, gross human rights violations in Iraq on an annual basis, the attempt to murder George H.W. Bush, just to name a few other things.

I'm not saying the invasion was illegal. I am saying it wasn't sanctioned by the U.N. That's why Bush had to form his own coalition. That's why Bush lied about asking for a vote on the matter. That the U.N. supported the coalition effort after the invasion does not translate to the U.N. supporting the invasion itself. At that point, the U.N. had no choice but to support the coalition's efforts to stabilize Iraq; the invasion already occurred anyway.

All US military action against Iraq from 1991 through 2003 and beyond was sanctioned by the UN through resolution 678. That's why resolution 678 was sited every year during the 1990s when military action would occur and was sited in the body of resolution 1441.

The U.N. always has a choice in supporting or not supporting a military action against another country. The U.N. did not support Iraq's efforts to stabilize Kuwait after its invasion of that country.

voting on a resolution against a non-permanent member is not the same as one against a permanent member. There's absolutely no point in a resolution against a permanent member state which has veto power.

Being a permanent member allows you two things. 1. To always be in the security council. 2. To have the power to veto resolutions.

But there is NOTHING preventing member states from at least attempting to pass a resolution against a permanent member just as member states attempt to pass such resolutions against Israel only to have it vetoed by the United States.


Take a look at the UN reaction to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The UN attempted to pass a resolution in the Security Council condemning and calling for the withdrawal of Soviet forces from Afghanistan. Naturally the Soviets vetoed the resolution, but it was still made. Then the United Nations voted on a non-binding resolution outside of the security council which did pass.

Notice though, there were no such attempts in the Security Council or outside the Security Council against the United States.

Jan 14, 1980:
United Nations vote "deplores" Soviet intervention in Afghanistan


In a crushing diplomatic rebuke to the Soviet Union, the U.N. General Assembly votes 104 to 18 to "deplore" the Russian intervention in Afghanistan.

The resolution also requested the "immediate, unconditional and total withdrawal of the foreign troops from Afghanistan." The immense margin of victory for the resolution indicated the worldwide disapproval for the December 1979 Soviet invasion and installation of a pro-communist puppet regime in Afghanistan.

The General Assembly's resolution had no direct impact on the Soviet Union's actions. Russia had earlier vetoed a similar resolution introduced in the Security Council.

Nothing like that happened in 2003. In fact, the opposite happened!

 

[U2Edge]

That is complete and utter bullshit. The U.N. did not approve of Bush invading Iraq in 2003. There was no such vote on it since Bush backed down from asking for it once he learned the vote would not support his invasion.

So Bush lied. He said, "no matter what the whip count is, we’re calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations." So despite insisting he was going to press the U.N. for a vote, "no matter what the whip count is," he lied and didn't ask for that vote because he knew the "whip count" was against him.

And approving of the coalition's efforts after the fact because they wanted to ensure that was not an occupation and that a transfer of power to a newly formed government in Iraq would take place, does not equate to approval of the invasion beforehand.

Changing ones mind about presenting a new resolution to the UN is NOT lying.

Bullshit.

He said, "no matter what the whip count is, we’re calling for the vote." Then didn't call of the vote because the "whip count" wasn't on his side.

That's a lie.

But your Bush fluffing is duly noted.

Approving the stationing of foreign troops on another country's soil is indeed approval of the way in which they arrived there.

The United States got approval from the UN to have troops in Iraq every year. If the invasion was illegal, the UN would not grant such approval and would be calling for the withdrawal of US troops and condemning the action that brought them there in the first place.

There was NEVER any attempt at a UN resolution to condemn the invasion in 2003 or call for the withdrawal of coalition troops. Instead, the opposite happened!

Approving of the mission after the fact is in no way approving of the invasion. The U.N. had no choice but to approve of the mission, the invasion already occurred. Condemning the invasion would be of no use. At that point, the U.N. could do nothing but let the U.S. stay to establish a new government.

As far as approval for the invasion, the member states already expressed their position prior to the invasion. Most were against military force and in favor of letting the U.N. handle the matter with weapons inspectors.

And again, Bush would not have backed away from putting the U.N. to a vote to support a military invasion had the U.N. supported it.

A lie is when you knowingly say something that is false. Bush at one time intended for there to be another resolution but changed his mind. That's not a lie.

The only reason for another resolution in 2003 was an attempt to get Tony Blair more support in Parliament. There was no legal need for it though. The UN had already sanctioned US military action in 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, as well as the new year 2003 through resolution 678 passed in 1990.

As far as approval for the invasion, the member states already expressed their position prior to the invasion. Most were against military force and in favor of letting the U.N. handle the matter with weapons inspectors.

Their opinion on military action in regards to Iraqi violations of UN resolutions was expressed in resolution 678. The only way resolution 678 could be nullified is through the passage of a new UN resolution which would in fact do that. Such a resolution was never passed.

Approving of the mission after the fact is in no way approving of the invasion. The U.N. had no choice but to approve of the mission, the invasion already occurred. Condemning the invasion would be of no use. At that point, the U.N. could do nothing but let the U.S. stay to establish a new government.

Well, then why did the UN attempt to condemn the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and call for it to withdrawal its military. Sure, the Soviets vetoed the resolution, but that did not stop the other members of the UNSC from writing the resolution and presenting it for a vote.

In addition, the UN can also pass non-binding resolutions in the general assembly, which it did against the Soviet Union for its invasion and occupation of Afghanistan.

The UN never passed a resolution approving the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. It never passed a resolution approving the Soviets attempts to stabilize Afghanistan and form a new government. Why? Because it condemned the invasion and wanted a Soviet withdrawal.

The exact opposite occurred with the US invasion of Iraq because the UN supported and authorized the invasion through multiple resolutions!

 

[georgephillip]

"The legal right to determine how to enforce its own resolutions lies with the Security Council alone (UN Charter Articles 39-42),[35] not with individual nations.[1][4][36]

"On 8 November 2002, immediately after the adoption of Security Council resolution 1441, Russia, the People's Republic of China, and France issued a joint statement declaring that Council Resolution 1441 did not authorize any 'automaticity' in the use of force against Iraq, and that a further Council resolution was needed were forced to be used.[37]

"Critics have also pointed out that the statements of US officials leading up to the war indicated their belief that a new Security Council resolution was required to make an invasion legal, but the UN Security Council has not made such a determination, despite serious debate over this issue.

"To secure Syria's vote in favor of Council Resolution 1441, Secretary of State Powell reportedly advised Syrian officials that 'there is nothing in the resolution to allow it to be used as a pretext to launch a war on Iraq.'"

Legality of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[U2Edge]

"The legal right to determine how to enforce its own resolutions lies with the Security Council alone (UN Charter Articles 39-42),[35] not with individual nations.[1][4][36]

"On 8 November 2002, immediately after the adoption of Security Council resolution 1441, Russia, the People's Republic of China, and France issued a joint statement declaring that Council Resolution 1441 did not authorize any 'automaticity' in the use of force against Iraq, and that a further Council resolution was needed were forced to be used.[37]

"Critics have also pointed out that the statements of US officials leading up to the war indicated their belief that a new Security Council resolution was required to make an invasion legal, but the UN Security Council has not made such a determination, despite serious debate over this issue.

"To secure Syria's vote in favor of Council Resolution 1441, Secretary of State Powell reportedly advised Syrian officials that 'there is nothing in the resolution to allow it to be used as a pretext to launch a war on Iraq.'"

Legality of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Exactly, which is why a joint statement by Russia, China, and France, all three of them heavy Iraq sanctions violators by the way is meaningless and irrelevant. The issues were already decided by the United Nations Security Council in late 1990 when it passed resolution 678 which authorized military action to handle a range of issues with regard to Iraq.

Resolution 678 continued to be sited every year in the 1990s when airstrikes would occur against Iraq. It is the legal basis for military action in 2003, while 1441 is simply a restatement of 678 in light of the situation in 2003.

In order for the "use of all means necessary" clause from resolution 678 to be nullified, the United Nations would have had to pass another resolution to do that. It never did. All the UN resolutions passed in regards to SADDAM's Iraq have supported military action and supported the occupation, year after year. No one at the United Nations, either in the security council, or in the general assembly has attempted to pass a resolution condemning US military action against Iraq in 2003 or calling for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq in 2003.

This is not because the United States has a veto since the Soviet Unions veto power did not stop the UN from attempting to pass similar resolutions against the Soviet Union for its invasion of Afghanistan.

So ultimately, you have multiple UN resolutions approving military action and occupation year after year, and NO UN resolutions or attempts at resolutions condemning or calling for the withdrawal of US troops!
Colin Powell still maintains to this day that the removal of Saddam was necessary and in keeping with the United Nations charter and UN resolutions.

 

[georgephillip]

"The legal right to determine how to enforce its own resolutions lies with the Security Council alone (UN Charter Articles 39-42),[35] not with individual nations.[1][4][36]

"On 8 November 2002, immediately after the adoption of Security Council resolution 1441, Russia, the People's Republic of China, and France issued a joint statement declaring that Council Resolution 1441 did not authorize any 'automaticity' in the use of force against Iraq, and that a further Council resolution was needed were forced to be used.[37]

"Critics have also pointed out that the statements of US officials leading up to the war indicated their belief that a new Security Council resolution was required to make an invasion legal, but the UN Security Council has not made such a determination, despite serious debate over this issue.

"To secure Syria's vote in favor of Council Resolution 1441, Secretary of State Powell reportedly advised Syrian officials that 'there is nothing in the resolution to allow it to be used as a pretext to launch a war on Iraq.'"

Legality of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Exactly, which is why a joint statement by Russia, China, and France, all three of them heavy Iraq sanctions violators by the way is meaningless and irrelevant. The issues were already decided by the United Nations Security Council in late 1990 when it passed resolution 678 which authorized military action to handle a range of issues with regard to Iraq.

Resolution 678 continued to be sited every year in the 1990s when airstrikes would occur against Iraq. It is the legal basis for military action in 2003, while 1441 is simply a restatement of 678 in light of the situation in 2003.

In order for the "use of all means necessary" clause from resolution 678 to be nullified, the United Nations would have had to pass another resolution to do that. It never did. All the UN resolutions passed in regards to SADDAM's Iraq have supported military action and supported the occupation, year after year. No one at the United Nations, either in the security council, or in the general assembly has attempted to pass a resolution condemning US military action against Iraq in 2003 or calling for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq in 2003.

This is not because the United States has a veto since the Soviet Unions veto power did not stop the UN from attempting to pass similar resolutions against the Soviet Union for its invasion of Afghanistan.

So ultimately, you have multiple UN resolutions approving military action and occupation year after year, and NO UN resolutions or attempts at resolutions condemning or calling for the withdrawal of US troops!
Colin Powell still maintains to this day that the removal of Saddam was necessary and in keeping with the United Nations charter and UN resolutions.

"While some politicians have argued that the resolution could authorize war under certain circumstances, the representatives in the meeting were clear that this was not the case. The United States Ambassador to the United Nations, John Negroponte, said:

“ [T]his 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. The resolution makes clear that any Iraqi failure to comply is unacceptable and that Iraq must be disarmed. And, one way or another, Iraq will be disarmed. If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violations, this resolution does not constrain any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security.[3] ”

"The ambassador for the United Kingdom, the co-sponsor of the resolution, said:

“ We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about 'automaticity' and 'hidden triggers' – the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response... There is no 'automaticity' in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12. We would expect the Security Council then to meet its responsibilities.[4] ”
The message was further confirmed by the ambassador for Syria..."

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

International law is clear.
There are only two realities that justify going to war.
UNSC authorization, which even John Bolton agrees did not exist in this case.
Or immanent threat, which also did not exist.

 

[Faun]

UN member states attempt to pass various resolutions against Israel every year which the United States often vetoes. But they do it to go on record as condemning Israeli policy. Certainly, if member states really seriously felt that the invasion was illegal and a violation, there should have at least been an attempt at a resolution to condemn the invasion and call for the withdrawal of US troops. There wasn't any of that.

voting on a resolution against a non-permanent member is not the same as one against a permanent member. There's absolutely no point in a resolution against a permanent member state which has veto power.


I'm not saying the invasion was illegal. I am saying it wasn't sanctioned by the U.N. That's why Bush had to form his own coalition. That's why Bush lied about asking for a vote on the matter. That the U.N. supported the coalition effort after the invasion does not translate to the U.N. supporting the invasion itself. At that point, the U.N. had no choice but to support the coalition's efforts to stabilize Iraq; the invasion already occurred anyway.


Launching Cruise missiles is not the same as a full scale military invasion. And the bombings were typically justified. Such as with operation Desert Fox which was because Hussein had the American weapons inspectors thrown out of Iraq. There was no such justification when Bush invaded Iraq. At that time, the U.N. inspectors were back in Iraq and finding nothing.


There's no such justification. Even if you try to make the wild leap from 678, which was about removing Hussein from Kuwait, to 1441, Hussein would have had to have been in violation of 1441, which was never established by the U.N. And again, as in every U.N. resolution, the U.N. "remained seized of the matter," not Bush.


At least 678 provided military authorization in the wording, "all means necessary," 1441 offers no such authorization and Iraq was never found to be in violation of 1441. He couldn't be since Bush had the weapons inspectors pulled out of Iraq so he could invade.


And again, the U.N. never declared Iraq was in violation of 1441.

The UN declares in resolution 1441 that Iraq has failed to comply with numerous UN resolutions passed under chapter VII rules of the United Nations. So Iraq is already in violation of multiple UN resolutions with regards to the disarmament of WMD, as well as Iraq's relationship with Kuwait and what it was required to do after the ceacefire agreement was signed in terms of returning stolen items to Kuwait and locating thousands of missing Kuwaiti's who were still missing as well as paying for damage and clean done by lighting hundreds of oil wells on fire and dumping oil into the Persian Gulf.

Then there is the issue of Iraq illegally selling oil on the black market, billions of dollars worth. Taking UN humanitarian aid and instead of giving it to Iraqi's reselling it too other countries. The list of violations is many, and resolution 678 approves military action to bring Iraq into compliance. Resolution 678 was not just a resolution covering the removal of Iraqi troops from Kuwait. It was FAR more than that.

"All Means Necessary" is no more military authorization than "Serious Consequences". Again the words military force may not have been used in 1441, but their not used in 678 either. In any event, 678 is REAFFIRMED in the body of 1441.

Even if I were to accept that premise, which I don't, nor did the U.N., resolution 1441 was a final opportunity for Iraq to comply. The U.N. never had the chance to declare if Hussein complied or not. In it's 3 report to the U.N., Blix reported that Iraq was cooperating and that his team needed more time, measured in "months," to complete their inspection. Rather than wait for the U.N. to complete its work, Bush circumvented that by going to war without U.N. approval.

Resolution 1441 itself mentions that Iraq is in Violation of multiple UN resolutions and the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement.

Iraq is already in violation of the resolutions. The inspectors are there to see if Saddam can account for missing stocks of WMD and show that he is in compliance with the resolutions. Saddam failed to do that, which is why the inspectors were pulled out. Saddam failed to comply with any UN resolutions while the inspectors were in Iraq from November 2002 to March 2003.

Not true. In Blix's 3rd report, he indicated Iraq was being more cooperative. He did not say Iraq failed to comply with past resolutions. He said more time was needed to determine that.

False. There is such a justification. Resolution 678 was sited every single year in the 1990s when the United States would bomb Iraq. 1441 states that Iraq is in violation of multiple UN resolutions.

Sure, the UN was seized of the matter and authorized military action against Iraq do to its non-compliance with multiple UN resolutions. The approval for military action was there every year from 1990 onward. Resolution 678 was repeatedly sited every year from 1990 onward when military action against Iraq occurred, which it did every year from 1992 through 2002!

You couldn't be more wrong. Again, 678 approved the removal of Iraq from Kuwait. That was accomplished. The justification of subsequent bombings stemmed from 687, not 678.

None of the UN resolutions makes any distinctions between certain military actions and others. There is no distinction made between air strikes, cruise missle strikes, raids, or full scale ground invasion. None at all.

That's why resolution 678 continued to be sited throughout the 1990s when bombing would occur. It continued to be the legal basis for any and all military action against Iraq!

You couldn't be more wrong. The U.N., not individual member states, define these measures. For 678, the U.N., sanctioned military force as the solution to remove Iraq from Kuwait as declared in the resolution, "to use all necessary means."

In 1441, not only was there no such U.N. sanction, but members of the U.N. outright declared 1441 did not authorize any such force. 1441 was a final chance for Iraq to comply ... the U.N., not George Bush & Tony Blair, remained seized of the matter.

Oh, and in December 1998, the inspectors were not thrown out, they were pulled out for their safety because military action was about to begin. SADDAM did not let them come back in until late 2002.

You couldn't be more wrong. It started with Hussein throwing out the American inspectors. The U.N. inspectors were then pulled by Clinton because he planned on bombing Iraq in retaliation for the American inspectors being thrown out.

Iraq expels American weapons inspectors

There was a very long list of justifications for invading Iraq and removing Saddam in 2003 from his illegal selling oil on the black market, the crumbling of sanctions and the embargo designed to try and contain him, the threat of him rebuilding is conventional non- conventional military capabilities now that sanctions and the embargo had crumbled, as well the more traditional well known justifications from his failure to verifiably disarm of all WMD and any WMD program related activities, his failure to account for the location and or dismantlement of past WMD, his failure to repay Kuwait for the damage he did to the country when he illegally invaded and then annexed it, and the failure to account for thousands of missing Kuwaiti citizens. Then there is also things like firing on US military aircraft and US military personal. Sending small groups of soldiers back into Kuwait to steal military equipment left in the desert, illegally reselling UN humanitarian aid meant for Iraqi civilians, gross human rights violations in Iraq on an annual basis, the attempt to murder George H.W. Bush, just to name a few other things.




All US military action against Iraq from 1991 through 2003 and beyond was sanctioned by the UN through resolution 678. That's why resolution 678 was sited every year during the 1990s when military action would occur and was sited in the body of resolution 1441.

The U.N. always has a choice in supporting or not supporting a military action against another country. The U.N. did not support Iraq's efforts to stabilize Kuwait after its invasion of that country.

voting on a resolution against a non-permanent member is not the same as one against a permanent member. There's absolutely no point in a resolution against a permanent member state which has veto power.

Being a permanent member allows you two things. 1. To always be in the security council. 2. To have the power to veto resolutions.

But there is NOTHING preventing member states from at least attempting to pass a resolution against a permanent member just as member states attempt to pass such resolutions against Israel only to have it vetoed by the United States.


Take a look at the UN reaction to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The UN attempted to pass a resolution in the Security Council condemning and calling for the withdrawal of Soviet forces from Afghanistan. Naturally the Soviets vetoed the resolution, but it was still made. Then the United Nations voted on a non-binding resolution outside of the security council which did pass.

Notice though, there were no such attempts in the Security Council or outside the Security Council against the United States.

Jan 14, 1980:
United Nations vote "deplores" Soviet intervention in Afghanistan


In a crushing diplomatic rebuke to the Soviet Union, the U.N. General Assembly votes 104 to 18 to "deplore" the Russian intervention in Afghanistan.

The resolution also requested the "immediate, unconditional and total withdrawal of the foreign troops from Afghanistan." The immense margin of victory for the resolution indicated the worldwide disapproval for the December 1979 Soviet invasion and installation of a pro-communist puppet regime in Afghanistan.

The General Assembly's resolution had no direct impact on the Soviet Union's actions. Russia had earlier vetoed a similar resolution introduced in the Security Council.

Nothing like that happened in 2003. In fact, the opposite happened!

You couldn't be more wrong. Again, the salient part you are ignoring ... had the U.N. sanctioned the invasion, Bush would not have formed his "Coalition of the Willing." He would have gone in with a U.N. coalition, which of course, he didn't.

 

[Kosh]

terrorism is terrorism and al Qaeda is just a brand name for it, just like the far left and terrorism go hand and hand.

 

[georgephillip]

terrorism is terrorism and al Qaeda is just a brand name for it, just like the far left and terrorism go hand and hand.

What's your definition of "terrorism"?

Terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians). Some definitions now include acts of unlawful violence and war."

When it comes to "terrorism", al-Qa'iad can't hold a candle to the US Marines.

Toxic legacy of US assault on Fallujah 'worse than Hiroshima' - Middle East - World - The Independent

 

[freedombecki]

This entire thread is all about pants on fire.

And I've had quite enough.

 

[Kosh]

terrorism is terrorism and al Qaeda is just a brand name for it, just like the far left and terrorism go hand and hand.

What's your definition of "terrorism"?

Terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians). Some definitions now include acts of unlawful violence and war."

When it comes to "terrorism", al-Qa'iad can't hold a candle to the US Marines.

Toxic legacy of US assault on Fallujah 'worse than Hiroshima' - Middle East - World - The Independent

Oh my the whole well it depends on your definition of "is" argument.

Left-wing terrorism (sometimes called Marxist-Leninist terrorism or revolutionary/left-wing terrorism) is terrorism meant to overthrow capitalist systems and replace them with socialist societies.

Then again the far left Iraq propaganda is old and goes to show that it is far left thinking, don't be a far left drone.