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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

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, '"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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Not in so many words, but Res. 1441 gave Saddam “one final opportunity” to disarm and he did not. And as David Horowitz notes, '"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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

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

---

Again, not in so many words.

Quote:

---

"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."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

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 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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Here is the UNSC Resolution 1441 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario3

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mario3

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

Quote:

---

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.