We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind…do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations."

Do you really want me to start going off on the U.N. Let's put it this way... The concept was the one part of Wilsonianism that was wrong ;at least regarding conflict prevention.


Was the war sanctioned by the UN ? Nope ,because nations that had a vested interest in Iraq antebellum had veto power to the idea of unified action.

Do you really want me to start going off on the U.N. ? Let's put it this way ......The concept was the one part of Wilsonianism that was wrong ;at least regarding conflict prevention.


Was the war sanctioned by the UN ? Nope ,because nations that had a vested interest in Iraq antebellum had veto power to the idea of unified action.
In 2002, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1441 on Iraq unanimously; wasn't this authorization?

Tom, when you join a club you agree to follow the rules, if you don't agree, then you should forfeit your rights as a member. Or do you agree with that premise?

Not in so many words, but Res. 1441 gave Saddam “one final opportunity” to disarm and he did not. And as David Horowitz notes (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=28944), '"Saddam’s violation of the arms control agreements that made up the Gulf War truce – and not the alleged existence of Iraqi WMDs – was the legal, moral and actual basis for sending American troops to Iraq.'

He also correctly notes, "The Authorization for the Use of Force bill – passed by majorities of both parties in both Houses – is the legal basis for the president’s war," and "only two of these clauses refer to stockpiles of WMDs," while "twelve of the reasons for going to war refer to UN resolutions violated by Saddam Hussein."

And as far as I know, there are no resolutions "deploring" the US' involvement in Iraq. If there are, I'd like to know which one.

Not in so many words, but Res. 1441 gave Saddam “one final opportunity” to disarm and he did not. And as David Horowitz notes (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=28944), '"Saddam’s violation of the arms control agreements that made up the Gulf War truce – and not the alleged existence of Iraqi WMDs – was the legal, moral and actual basis for sending American troops to Iraq.'

He also correctly notes, "The Authorization for the Use of Force bill – passed by majorities of both parties in both Houses – is the legal basis for the president’s war," and "only two of these clauses refer to stockpiles of WMDs," while "twelve of the reasons for going to war refer to UN resolutions violated by Saddam Hussein."

And as far as I know, there are no resolutions "deploring" the US' involvement in Iraq. If there are, I'd like to know which one.
Didn’t 1441 call for the immediate, total disarmament of Iraq?

Didn’t 1441 call for the immediate, total disarmament of Iraq?

Again, not in so many words.


"Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,

Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance"

It determined Iraq "has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions" and that "in order to begin to comply" allowed "30 days from the date of this resolution" for "a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes."

Again, not in so many words.

But wasn’t the use of "all means necessary" still authorized and in effect from UN Resolution 678?

DC

Yes the authorization by the UN states that it could be enforced by all means necessary . That of course accordingly gave President Bush the go ahead .But the war opponents in the UN made a counterpoint that the final go ahead should've come directly from the UNSC.

My own view was that we needed no such authorization from them at all. Besides material breach of the various UN resolutions he was also in violation of the cease fire agreement from 1991.

DC

yes the authorization by the UN states that it could be enforced by all means necessary . That of course accordingly gave President Bush the go ahead .But the war opponents in the UN made a counterpoint that the final go ahead should've come directly from the UNSC.

My own view was that we needed no such authorization from them at all. Besides material breach of the various UN resolutions he was also in violation of the cease fire agreement from 1991.
I agree, because Resolution 660 remained in effect.

If you recall Resolution 678 is the one that authorized military action to be taken by the coalition forces during the Gulf War:
2. [The Security Council, acting under Chapter VII of the Charter].. . Authorizes Member States cooperating with the Government of Kuwait unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements as set forth in paragraph 1 above the foregoing resolutions to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area.

Here is the UNSC Resolution 1441 (http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/1441.pdf) for everyone to read.

It seems pretty clear to me from paragraphs 11, 12 & 13 of the resolution that 1441 did authorize military action, and that "the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations."

Elliot

Here is the UNSC Resolution 1441 (http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/1441.pdf) for everyone to read.

It seems pretty clear to me from paragraphs 11, 12 & 13 of the resolution that 1441 did authorize military action, and that "the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations."

Elliot
I agree Elliot, but there are even more grievous charges than interfering with inspection, and what little can be attributed to arms violations. Then too are the failures of some members of the Security Council.

Saddam Hussein was guilty of violating both Resolution 660 and Resolution 678 in that he continued to brutalize the Iraqi people, which included human rights violations and crimes against humanity; supported international terrorism; refused to release or account for prisoners of war and other missing individuals from the Gulf War era; refused to return stolen Kuwaiti property; and circumvented the UN's economic sanctions.

Over the years America and others have continued to ask the UN security Council to act against these continuing violations of Resolution 660 and Resolution 678 and they refused to comply with the 'Rules of the Club'; therefore, those in violation should forfeit their rights as a member.


Who is guilty of failure to 'play by the rules' in the United Nations?:confused:

Iraq crossed the boundaries on several occasions and the UN was aware of the situation. Whether they wanted to back the US is another question. What may not be technically or specifically called as "sanctioned" was certainly alluded to in a few of the paragraphs.

Bobby

No we were not suppose to go to war and the UN was against it. I guess it shows you who is above "the united nations of the world". It's sad that the USA is above all other countries of the world.

no we were not suppose to go to war and the UN was against it. I guess it shows you who is above "the united nations of the world". it's sad that the USA is above all other countries of the world.

Why is that sad? We pay 90% of the expenses of the UN. We host them. We ignore them when they break our rules and laws (the foreign UN delegates owe millions of dollars to the city of New York for unpaid parking tickets and traffic violations). We do 90% of the military work they need done. We do 90% of the rescue and humanitarian work that needs to be done. And when the UN needs quick, strong military action, they call us. Why shouldn't the USA consider itself above the UN? The UN certainly seems to.

You believe it is "unfair" that the USA holds itself above other nations. I see it as unfair when we carry the heavy load that other countries can't or won't, but aren't respected in conjunction with the amount we contribute. We pay more, we do more, we do it better, so we should get more in return.

If the other member countries don't like it, they can stop relying on the USA to support the UN financially and militarily, the UN can go to Geneva. They can go their way, and we'll go our way. We'll do what we need to do for ourselves and our real allies, and other countries can do the same. That would be fine with me. But if they are going to call on the USA to do most of the work, then we should also get most of the influence.

If this were a charity, and the charitable organization stopped doing what the large donor wanted them to do, how long would it be before the donor stopped donating? If it were a public corporation, and the major shareholder wasn't getting what he wanted, how long would it be before he stopped being an investor? The same should be true of our relationship with the UN... or else we can end our relationship with the UN.

Elliot

Yes I believe that a black or middleeastern life is worth as much as a white life. You should not put a price on human lives. Is that what you are doing by saying that we fund 90 percent of the UN so we get to do what we want? Shame on you

it's sad that the USA is above all other countries of the world.


You are mistaken. The USA was in position to remove a dictator and I don't think anyone would argue to continue to permit a murdering tyrant to continue. Since that goal has been achieved another question is should the USA remain longer. I think we should start a moderate troop reduction by the end of the year.


Bobby

Mario3 agrees: by saying that we fund 90 percent of the UN so we get to do what we want... you are saying that we can put a price on human lives. Don't bring money into this... but I guess you did say you watch fox news

Mario, that is one of the silliest things I have ever heard. To you the term "I should get what I pay for" is equivalent to "saying we can put a price on human lives"? Ridiculous. Especially considering that the USA gives more in human aid and emergency relief on its own than the UN does even with the USA supporting it.

As for putting a price on human lives, I hate to tell you this, but the UN is just about as guilty as can be of putting a price on human lives. Have you heard about the UN food-for-sex scandal? I guess the price of a 13-year-old girl in Darfur is a sandwich. Have you heard about the Oil-for-Food scandal? I guess the price of a child in Iraq is a barrel of oil.

Don't give me this crap about putting a price on human lives. The US population is the most generous nation in the world. We were just named the most charitable country in the world by Giving USA Foundation at Indiana University's Center on Philanthropy, as reported by CNN on June 26, 2007. And 83% of that came from individuals or bequests. According to the report, American individuals give more than twice as much charity (as a percentage of GDP) than the next most charitable country (Britain). The UN is full of graft, sex-scandals, and wasted money. We don't put a price on human lives, they do.

And if we are going to continue to give to the UN that steals and wastes our money, we should at least get something out of it. Or else we should stop giving to the UN, and then we can give that money as charity directly to where it will do the most good without going through the UN.

Elliot

No its not the most generous relative to how much killing it does and relative to how much money we have. Well it is generous to israel so I will give you a point (it gives them over a billion dollars a year in "aid").

What difference does it make? It needed done, and we did it. So who is going to do something about Iran, or will we just let them develop an atomic bomb?

WHAT? Israel admitted to having an atomic bomb. WHere have you been? THE ENTIRE WORLD is telling iran to back off because israel just admitted months ago that it has an atomic bomb.

"Mario3 disagrees: but the USA wont touch some of the worst dictators of the world. the usa doesnt care about SAudi Arabia who sentences people to death if they have aids."


Mario,

I said we went into to remove a tyrant dictator, not that we are were the world's police. Hussein was given warning after warning. Which way do you want it?



Bobby

Then why is the whole world so scared due to israel annoucning it has an atomic plan? No one is planning on destroying the entire civilization of the world but some nations have announced that they will bomb other nations with their atomic bomb and so far the only one is israel : (

then why is the whole world so scared due to israel annoucning it has an atomic plan? no one is planning on destroying the entire civilization of the world but some nations have announced that they will bomb other nations with their atomic bomb and so far the only one is israel : (


It's really simple! Israel promotes law abiding citizens and doesn't murder it's own people. Nations surrounding Israel have planned for Israel's destruction time and time again. Israel continues to have the freedom, right, and blessing of the U.S. (THANK G-D) to defend itself. Big big big difference between Iraq and Israel.:)


Bobby

it's sad that the USA is above all other countries of the world.

If the US has, as a nation, perceived a threat to her sovereignty, where does it state that before we head off that threat, we need approval by nations that have little interest in fighting it and even less interest in providing significant help?

The big white elephant in the middle of the room may be not that we want to instill a democratic government, so much as keep the radicals out of that government!

We, and when I say "we," I'm probably talking about most everybody who lives in the modern world... we hold high the right to offer our interpretations of decisions made by people who are in a unique position to know and be aware of many things I probably don't want to be privy to. If you can't see all of the pieces of the puzzle, you can't sit at the table. It's like Monday morning quarterbacking. We look at what happened yesterday, or last year, and say I'd have done this or I'd have never done that... It's so easy. But I don't want to sit in that hot seat!

Hahahahahahha they've just been honest and open about atomic bombing so lets all go to bed captainRich? No Iran even sent Bush and 8 page letter which on the CNN website (the transcript is there) and he said we should put war aside and stop this before people get hurt but the american government just really wanted war too much so bush disregarded it. Anyway war is on no matter what I guess, especially when no one has even said its wrong for israel to have atomic bombs... that's scary and very brutal of that regime

Who's atomic bombing? Who has Israel threatened to anilliate? No one. Seems to me they want to draw a line in the sand, a line that everyone involved agreed to in around 1948!

And no matter if you admit it or not, Iran is highly and directly involved in the battles in Iraq. There not showing up as Iranian; nobody wears a uniform so they cannot be identified. Why do they wear scarves to hide their faces?

And why should we trust Iranian government? I don't recall the UN telling Israel to discontinue nuclear research and development, but I do recall hearing them tell Iran to stop. Why? Because they're unstable. They seem to want to control the whole of the region, and, are you ready for this? The oil.

The last thing we, or any other nation, needs or wants is to have them control the region or the oil.

This is global. And not every nation on this planet can speak up. So we will step up and take down the bully, making it a better place for everybody.

We should trust the iranian gvt more because they are one gvt that hasn't invaded another country in over 100 years. Are you that stupid? Do you read at all? And nuclear technology covers medication too... this not only about oil... but its about western countries wanting to ensure that they have a monopoly over medication... medication that every country can produce on their own... iran has more doctors in the united states - go walk in the your average american hospital... majority of doctors arnt white buddy. We're scared that some other countries want to get in on this market that we have a tight leashe over

You know, more people were executed in Iran during the time that we glorified them and they were our allies. Since the new regime came in, less people have been put to death. There are more iranian women that are doctors than there are in america and canada. Their women ran the revolution... how come we never talk about these things and all we do is call them terrorists and make them out to be nothing but dust?

I'm not saying their new regime is great, but I am saying that you are out of line and are being ignorant

Iran even sent Bush and 8 page letter which on the CNN website (the transcript is there) and he said we should put war aside and stop this before people get hurt but the american government just really wanted war too much so bush disregarded it
Read the letter again . It is an invitation for President Bush to submit to Islam . One of the requirements before an attack is for a Muslim to invite conversion by the opponent. What you are reading from Ahmamadjihad is a declaration of war. A similar letter was sent to the King of Persia just before the army of Islam conquered it. The historical impications were not lost to either of them .


Mr. President, according to divine verses, we have all been called upon to worship one God [Allah] and follow the teachings of the divine [Muslim] prophets. We increasingly see that people around the world are flocking toward a main focal point – that is the Almighty God. Undoubtedly through faith in God and the teachings of the prophets, the people will conquer their problems. My question for you is: "Do you not want to join them?" Special Reports - Letter of Iranian President Mamood Ahmadi-Najad to United President George W. Bush (http://www.wehaitians.com/letters%20of%20iran%20president%20mamood%20ahmadi% 20najad%20to%20united%20states%20president%20georg e%20w%20bush.html)

It is a matter of record that the Mahdi Hatter's goal is to use nuclear weapons to advance the spread of Islam, destroy Israel, hasten the return of the 12th Mahdi who disappeared or fell in a well in Qod , and bring about the glorious Islamic "End Days" .
But first, the Koran requires that an infidel be invited to voluntarily submit to Islam before an attack is justified.


Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said here Thursday that his letter to President George W. Bush did not concern the nuclear dossier, but rather was an invitation to Islam and the prophets culture.

He made the above remarks in reply to a reporter while attending press conference on his letter to President Bush in Jakarta in the afternoon of the third day of his stay in Jakarta.

Stressing that the letter was beyond the nuclear issue, the chief executive said that in principle, the country's nuclear case is not so significant to make him write a letter about it.

"We act according to laws and our activities are quite clear. We are rather intent on solving more fundamental global matters.

"The letter was an invitation to monotheism and justice, which are common to all divine prophets. If the call is responded positively, there will be no more problems to be solved," added the president. President says his letter to President Bush was invitation to Islam - Irna (http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-24/0605110155191821.htm)

Mario ;
I spent a lot of time in Iran pre-revolution. Most of the people who lived then and are still alive today long for the good old days .

I am actually torn about Iran . On the one hand I would like to see the popular revolution come that will sweep the Mullocracy out of power... and it could come soon. But their development of nuclear power is so insidious that the time for preventive action may be unavoidable . Nuclear power in a free society is not a problem . Nuclear power in the hands of a nut job like Ahamadjihad is intolerable .

we should trust the iranian gvt more because they are one gvt that hasnt invaded another country in over 100 years.
Nonsense! Just because they don't show up in uniform doesn't mean they don't have blood, US blood, on their hands!


Are you that stupid? do you read at all?

i am saying that you are out of line and are being ignorant.
Don't continue to be insulting. You only show your own lack of character when you do and that's not necessary.


and nuclear technology covers medication too...
So when Iran says the want to wipe Israel off the map, what they really mean is they want to medicate them?


medication that every country can produce on their own...
Why reinvent the wheel? Can't we all just get along? Especially when it comes to health care? Nobody's going to argue that we have helped many countries, around the world, with their health care issues. Most of these countries couldn't do it by themselves. You've heard of the International Red Cross? The US contributes significantly to that endeavor!


and they were our allies.
The key is they were allies. I know. In the late seventies, I taught Faculty Development for the USAF. Many of the students in the classes were Iranian. But they have changed with every regime change. And they are no longer our allies.

then why is the whole world so scared due to israel annoucning it has an atomic plan? No one is planning on destroying the entire civilization of the world but some nations have announced that they will bomb other nations with their atomic bomb and so far the only one is israel : (


Again, Mario, you are full of baloney.

"Our dear Imam (referring to Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine."

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, World Without Zionism speech, October 2005

"BLITZER: But should there be a state of Israel?
Iranian Ambassador SOLTANIEH: I think I've already answered to you. If Israel is a synonym and will give the indication of Zionism mentality, no. "

Interview with Wolf Blitzer, April 2006.

I'd say that there have been pretty strong and credible threats from Iran regarding wiping Israel off the map if they get nukes.

Furthermore, with regard to Israel "admitting they have nuclear weapons and threatening to use them", here is what actually happened.


Israel Denies Policy Change After Olmert Nuclear Arms Hint

December 12, 2006 -- Israeli officials are denying any change in policy after comments by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in which he appears to admit that Israel has nuclear weapons.

In an interview with German television on December 11, Olmert said Iran has threatened to wipe Israel off the map and accused Tehran of trying to make nuclear weapons.

Seeking to draw a distinction with Iran, Olmert listed Israel alongside nuclear powers the United States, France, and Russia.

"Iran openly, explicitly, and publicly threatens to whip Israel off the map," Olmert said. "Can you say that this is the same level when they are aspiring to have nuclear weapons, as America, France, Israel, Russia?"

An Israeli spokesman later said Olmert did not mean to say that Israel has nuclear weapons, but instead had meant to describe America, France, Israel, and Russia as democracies, in contrast to Iran, which the spokesman described as an "extremist theological regime."

Israel is widely believed to have an arsenal of nuclear weapons, but has never confirmed or denied this.

(compiled from agency reports)
Copyright (c) 2006. RFE/RL, Inc. Reprinted with the permission of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, 1201 Connecticut Ave. N.W. Washington DC 20036. RADIO FREE EUROPE / RADIO LIBERTY (http://www.rferl.org)

Now... does Israel have nuclear arms? Yes, I believe that they do. Do they have a nuclear option for Iran? Yes. But at no time has Israel threatened to use those weapons.

So again, Mario, you are proven to be full of crap and have no idea what you are talking about.

Elliot

Hey I don't think what their leader had "said" is a reason to go and beat the hell out of their people! Just like what our own stupid bush says shouldn't be a reason to come and beat the hell out of our people. I think we should leave the children of iran, iraq and afghanistan alone. Sure people died in afghanistan... but more people just died because of us... there's got to be another answer. We funded the taliban and helped them come into power and we didn't mind that they tortured the f8ck out of women before, but as soon as they don't kiss our we step in and pretend to be heroes?

hey i dont think what their leader had "said" is a reason to go and beat the hell out of their people! just like what our own stupid bush says shouldnt be a reason to come and beat the hell out of our people. i think we should leave the children of iran, iraq and afghanistan alone. sure people died in afghanistan ... but more people just died because of us...there's got to be another answer. we funded the taliban and helped them come into power and we didnt mind that they tortured the f8ck out of women before, but as soon as they dont kiss our we step in and pretend to be heros?

You need to chill, Mario3

From the AMHD (edited):

Ask Me Help Desk insists that members abide by the rules and policies detailed below:

3. Do not disparage any member publicly on the forums. If you state that you disagree with the answer of another member, please explain why politely.

4. Do not post any comments that are obscene, vulgar, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws.