ByteMe

Bush said Saturday the U.N. Security Council will be presented with a "clear and simple" resolution that asks members to address just one question: Is Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein complying with a November resolution demanding that Iraq disarm itself of weapons of mass destruction?


Got the above from CNN.


Sounds to me like Bush is going to make it real simple for the stupid UN. Kinda like paint by the numbers. I bet France can still fokk it up.

ByteMe

What kind of post was that? You stupid jerk. I hope the mods ban your ignorant ass. Now all the members will know what a ignorant goat-blowing dickwad you are. I also hope you die a miserable death... just like everyone in here suffers when they see your posts. Fokk off and die.

raid517

Nice one ByeMe! That's the way to get things started.



Q

Ps

Can I just say that I agree with your last comment completely?

JavaFox

Yeah, well, R1441 was pretty clear, and so were the numerous other UN resolutions.

ByteMe

Just doing my part. Now lets see. You aren't allowed to "insult" in this area. If you agree with someone that has insulted does that make you guilty? Hmmmm.... I demand you get banned.

raid517

Well Byte if you ask me you should get the chop for being so grossly and openly verbally insulting to a long standing forum member. I mean the original poster was just trying to make a point. It might not have been a very good point, but there was no need to be quite that savage with him. But oh well, I guess he kind of deserved it really.

Q

ToshiroOC

Ok, people, please, don't make me get out the mop... we have enough sarcasm dripping around here anyway...

__________________
[img][/img]
[color=White]Peace be with you, Joe.[/color]
Driverheaven Staff Member (Supermoderator)

radTube

So Bush is going to go on asking the same question again and again (acting as if USA was something more than a UN member among others) and if these 'excellent diplomatic tactics' don't work it's proof that the rest of the world is stupid and their opinions don't even matter? I guess this 'analysis' is quite close to what it boils down to. One thing that leaves me wondering is that if USA is going to attack in any case (that's pretty much a given, right?) then what the hell are they waiting for? The 'all clear' from UN they've already declared to be of no value whatsoever? Go figure...

__________________
[color=orange]
[/color]

ByteMe

The US is just trying to appease some of the dumber countries.

JavaFox

Well, Rad, a lot of people actually back this war WITH a second resolution, even --by and large-- the French people. A second resolution is largely irrelevant I feel, but if Europe wants it, it costs nothing to try. If some members still are determined to condemn the UN and UNSC to irrelevance, then the US will enforce the will of the UN through its partners.

raid517

No one has ever explained that to me yet JF, you "will enforce the will of the UN through its partners." So your going to enforce the will of an organisation who's will if a second resolution doesn't pass you don't recognise? That is an oxymoron, you cannot act in the interests of an organisation who's will you don't recognise, nor can you use resolutions it passes for justification for war if you do not recognise their validity. You can act in your own self interests, in which case it is you who are designating the UN as irrelevant, not the UN designating itself 'irrelevant'. You can't just pick and choose which bits of treaties, trade organisations or international diplomatic bodies you want to be in or out of. You are either is or your not. I think everyone knows that people such as yourself would rather be out of all these agreements and organisations and I think you know how a lot of people feel how crazy that would be.

I don't know if either perspective is ever reconcilable. I guess we shall all just have to wait and see. Elections can change many things and positions can quickly change. The bigger picture may not be clear for quite a few years yet.


Q

JavaFox

Well, allow me to clear things up. If indeed you ask that question out of genuine interest. The United Nations has passed numerous Chapter 7 resolutions regarding the conduct and disarmament of Iraq. Chapter 7 resolutions can be enforced by --if you read the UN Charter you'd know this-- military action of all types.

So has Iraq been disarming? Well... no. We still don't know where thousands of chemical warheads have gone, we don't know what happened to their existing stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and we know they have an illegal missile system (al Samoud 2). According to UN Security Council Resolution 1441 Iraq MUST account for those weapons, must destroy any any existing weapons they have, and cannot possess missiles capable of travelling more than 150 kilometers. Iraq isn't complying. This isn't a matter of debate -- it is public record.

R1441 was a last-chance resolution. It specifically came with the threat of military force, just as every single Chapter 7 resolution before it did.

Now, France and Germany (among others) are CONVINCED that military action is wrong. Germany has gone so far as to refuse to participate in a war, even with a second resolution. Where is the integrity in this? How are THEY keeping the UN relevant, by refusing to enforce in a way perfectly justified under UN law.

Do I think the UN is irrelevant? No. But it is in danger of becoming irrelevant. If it will not enforce what it said it would in a manner prescribed by the UN Charter itself, then it is IRRELEVANT!

raid517

Mmm well I think we've been here before too. You keep quoting UN resolutions, but then you say if there's second vote in the security council and it doesn't go your way then the security council is irrelevant. So how can you justly quote UN resolutions as a motive for doing anything if in a second resolution you plan to ignore the decision that is made if it is not in your favour? Doesn't that mean that this administration considers that the will of the security council is already irrelevant? By default does this not also mean that any past resolutions are void too? It seems that what your saying is that its ok for the US to pick and choose what resolutions to follow, but when it comes to France and Germany this is not ok. Having said this neither France or Germany have stepped outside the remit of the security council yet. It is only the US who proposes to do this if things don't quite go in the way that she requires them to go.

I don't think its accurate either to say that it is only the European states who have expressed support for a second resolution. A lot of Arab states are pretty keen on it too. It might not, on the scale of things be a great idea to make them too mad at us. Angry Arabs aren't something the West has a good track record in dealing with. And of course we all know the antics these angry Arabs can get up to when people annoy them - or fail to convince them that America only ever acts in their best interests. I don't think there's many Arabs in the world who really believe this at the moment anyway, so if you just go it alone stormin' Norman style, your bound to give them even more reason to mistrust you than they already do. A second resolution would help a great deal to sooth their nerves too, as it would to a certain extent act as a rubber stamp, validating any action the allies take. In this sense a second resolution is just as valuable to the US in order to placate her Arab and European allies as it is to anyone else. Without it, your position will be greatly weakened, because just like me, a lot of people with have genuine reason to question the validity of any action that is taken.

This still doesn't mean I don't think we should go to war. It does mean I hope our governments genuinely bust their asses off to attempt to get a resolution through. Although it might be possible to go ahead as things stand, the dangers of not convincing the world that we have the legal and moral authority to act, could be potentially catastrophic. Things are high risk enough as they stand.

Q