Germany Owes the World an Apology!

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Thrawn
Yes it was.

"3. Further demands that Iraq:

(a) Cease hostile or provocative actions by its forces against all Member States including missile attacks and flights of combat aircraft;
(b) Designate military commanders to meet with counterparts from the forces of Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait pursuant to resolution 678 (1990) to arrange for the military aspects of a cessation of hostilities at the earliest possible time; "

During the Gulf War the US was acting as an agent for the Security Council.  The US was instrumental in the war and the cease fire negotiatoins but it was acting under the auspices of the UN.






Just because it is a redundancy doesn't make it any less valid.

 


It says,

Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.
1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

No one nation state is more or less sovereign than the other.  No nation state can declare a war of agression against another, for example.

Only the security council can do that.

I would probably be easier if you just read the Charter.  It's all done in very plain english.

Did I miss the UN resolution regarding the cease fire?

1441 reaffirmed all previous Iraq resolutions.  Which UN resolution is the US in Violation of again?

[Elfie]

Originally posted by funkedup
Yes,

If the USA sells pesticides to Iraq then they are terrible inhumane chemical weapons and the USA should apologize.

But if we find pesticides in Iraq, then they are not weapons of mass destruction and Iraq was no threat to the USA, it's redikilus.

You know....that would be funny if it wasn't so true

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
certainly, the stories are biased towards the U.N. side of the discussion. No argument there.

/B]

LOL, which UN side of the argument? The UN has resolutions against Iraq, not the US.

the UN side???? are you freaking serious?


Where on the site can we view the UN's resolve against Iraq?

What a joke...... and sad

[Sandman]

Does the U.S. have sanction from the UN Security Council for the invasion of Iraq?

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Does the U.S. have sanction from the UN Security Council for the invasion of Iraq?

Does your site point out UN views and resolve against Iraq, or only anti-American BS?

SM, you seem to be a sick person and I will no longer give you the pleasure of a response on this BBS.

[NUKE]

Any Americans care to view Sand Man's link and comment on his post?

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by NUKE
Did I miss the UN resolution regarding the cease fire?

It appears so.

From Resolution 687.

"Conscious of the need to take the following measures acting under Chapter VII of the Charter,

1. Affirms all thirteen resolutions noted above, except as expressly changed below to achieve the goals of this resolution, including a formal cease-fire;

You can read the rest here: http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm

1441 reaffirmed all previous Iraq resolutions.

Not quite.  It recalls all previous relevant resolutions.

Which UN resolution is the US in Violation of again?

Once again, it is in violation of 1441 as well as all the others that state that the reaffirms the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States etc.  Alot of the relevant resolutions include a state such as that one.


Yet again I recommend you actually read the relevant documentation before you try to debate it.

[NUKE]

1441:Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,

Recalling is ambiguous I guess

[Elfie]

There is something I don't understand.

How is going to war with Iraq illegal? A Charter isn't a law. Unless there is someother International Law out there I am unaware of, I don't believe the USA has broken any laws.

On the other hand we did sign an agreement when we joined the UN. We did break that agreement. Quite frankly after 12 years of UN resolutions it's pretty clear to me the UN wasn't going to enforce it's own resolutions.

The more I see of how Saddam treated his own people the more I believe it doesn't matter if he had WMD or not. Leaving him in power would be a far greater crime than any *perceived* crime were are commiting now.

sorry for the edit, had a couple typos

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Thrawn
Yet again I recommend you actually read the relevant documentation before you try to debate it.

Why when it's so much simpler to just skim through the titles and then make personal attacks?

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Why when it's so much simpler to just skim through the titles and then make personal attacks?

Personal attacks huh? point out a personal attack.

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by NUKE
Does your site point out UN views and resolve against Iraq, or only anti-American BS?

Yes it does, but once again why don't you read the actual documentation instead of relying on unfounded assumptions.

Why is Sandman sick for doing you a favour and trying to provide you with more information about a topic that you appeared to know more about?

[NUKE]

Tell all of us dim-wits on this BBS how the US is in violation of UN resolution 1441 again.

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by NUKE
Recalling is ambiguous I guess

It's the minutes for the meeting.  Not one of those resolutions authorised a change of the Iraqi government.

[Hangtime]

lol.. nuke.. he won't answer, he'll just dodge.

it's a french canada thing.