Author Topic: Iraqi losses ? (Read 2304 times)

Toad · « **Reply #105 on:** March 23, 2003, 08:30:06 AM »

Failure to disarm in accordance with the terms they agreed to after Gulf War I. Despite ~17 further UN SC resolutions over 12 years to do so and despite the clear warning in UN SC 1441.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #106 on:** March 23, 2003, 08:33:31 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Failure to disarm in accordance with the terms they agreed to after Gulf War I. Despite ~17 further UN SC resolutions over 12 years to do so and despite the clear warning in UN SC 1441.

That doesant count because it justfies the US attack. The only acceptable evidence to judge the US attack must in no way justify the attack.

Toad · « **Reply #107 on:** March 23, 2003, 08:36:12 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hristo
They reacted in Bosnia, although too little, too late. But, then again, better than nothing.

And therein lies the problem with the UN SC system.

It would be worse using your "media" system.

Face it. The Security Council couldn't agree on where to have lunch, let alone a matter of life and death use of military force. Again, remember that ONLY Gulf War I was the ONLY UN military action authorized by the ENTIRE UN SC.

As a means of employing military force, the UN SC simply is not a player, given the way it works. They've proven it over and over.

I think now, after this current precedent, it will always come down to individual countries taking action, whether in "Coalition" or by themselves from now on.

I seriously doubt we will ever see another UN SC resolution that authorizes military action or even "serious consequences".

Hristo · « **Reply #108 on:** March 23, 2003, 08:57:47 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Failure to disarm in accordance with the terms they agreed to after Gulf War I. Despite ~17 further UN SC resolutions over 12 years to do so and despite the clear warning in UN SC 1441.

Isn't it for UN to decide if someone doesn't comply with UN resolutions ?

Isn't it for UN to decide what to do if someone doesn't comply with UN resolutions ?

Seems to me Bush thinks he is UN. His precedent is very dangerous. Direct loss of lives, terrorism escallation in near future and inpiration to other world's big bully types.

Toad · « **Reply #109 on:** March 23, 2003, 09:16:31 AM »

Your argument here is based around one view of UN SC 1441.

One side says it does not authorize military action, the other side says it does.

In theory the threat of "serious consequences" is mutually understood by all members to mean "military action".

At least until it is inconvenient to understand that.

Why do politicians speak and write ambiguously? Why didn't they just write "military action" into 1441? Because they are politicians and they never commit.

Which is why the UN didn't do anything effective in Bosnia.

And, lest anyone forget, I too was against initiating action against Iraq without a clear UN SC resolution to do so.

It's just that I can also see where US/UK/Australia/Spain/et al felt they had UN SC justification to act. Clearly, Iraq has not complied with the terms of the GW 1 surrender.

I'm not going to be a bit sorry to see Saddam out of power either. I just don't think acting w/o "better" clear SC support is going to be in the long term best interest of the US.