Originally posted by Toad
It's as Toad suggests; laughable.
And you're making it more so. And I thank you for that.
Just about anyone else, before reading the nunmbered bullet items as if they were immutable laws, would read the 1441 preface and try to understand the reasons for the SC resolution.. Which isn't very hard to decipher at all. 
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Security Council,
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 also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,
Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,
Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,
Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pretty clear that the intent of the UN since the ceasefire that ended GW1 and through all of the following years and resolutions had the goal of removing Iraq's threat to international peace and security.
Pretty clear that Iraq is not presently a "threat to international peace and security".
Don't have to be Albert Einstein to see those two ideas are correct.
So the goal of 1441 has clearly been achieved.. .unfortunately, not by the UN, but as has been discussed in other threads the UN doesn't really do that sort of thing, do they?
But you go on putting up stuff that anyone... well almost anyone... can see is no longer applicable and pretend that you've found some sort of proof that the US is ... what?... as bad as Hussein? Is secretly hiding Iraqi WMD in Iraq and plans to use them as a threat to international peace and security? Needs further UN action to insure that Iraq is no longer a threat to international peace and security?
Like I said, laughable.
But it's cheap entertainment, so please do keep on. I enjoy watching people.. well, you probably know what you're actually doing here.
Hmm "Iraq is not presently a threat to international peace and security"?
Tell that to Sergio Vieira de Mello. I'd say people blowing up the UN HQ does pose a threat to international peace and security. But I'm sure thats just laughable really.
It's not too safe for the US & UK troops either: According to one of Robert Fisk's latest reports in the Independent, Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, commander of the US 800th Military Police Brigade "was remarkably frank about other events, such as the fact that the Americans in Abu Ghraib are attacked four out of every seven nights with mortars, small arms and rocket-propelled grenades.
That's 16 times a month. And that's a lot of attacks." Laughable, no doubt.
And let's be like the interim government and CENTCOM and not even mention how dangerous and deadly it is for Iraqis. Because that would be laughable.
But I digress. Away with such laughable musings.
So is what I'm suggesting - that Iraq is still in violation of 1441 - really so far-fetched and laughable?
Consider for a moment:
Have the US arrested or killed Hussein?
No.
Have the US located and destroyed the much vaunted WMDs?
No.
So Hussein & the WMDs are, we presume, still out there.
And if I'm reading your argument right - it was really only Hussein and his WMDs that were "a threat to international peace and security" according to your reading of 1441. So what you're saying effectively is that although the two main threats to international peace and security are still at large and have not been found, it's all OK really and there is no longer any "threat to international peace and security": here's Tom with sports...
What I am trying to argue is that Resolution 1441 has not got anything in it to justify either:
a) regime change being considered compliance or
b) invasion without the consensus of the Security Council (you know, the guys who passed the 1441 resolution).
This is what the UK Ambassador to the UN said about 1441 in a speech just after its adoption: "We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about “automaticity” and “hidden triggers” – the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response, as a co-sponsor with the United States of the text we have adopted. There is no "automaticity" in this Resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in Operational Paragraph 12. We would expect the Security Council then to meet its responsibilities."
This is what the US Ambassador to the UN said about it: "As we have said on numerous occasions to Council members, this Resolution contains no “hidden triggers” and no “automaticity” with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA, or a member state, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12. The Resolution makes clear that any Iraqi failure to comply is unacceptable and that Iraq must be disarmed." He goes on to hint that the US will invade anyway if the Security Council refuses to give them approval.
And in my original argument I'm pointing out that, like it or not, technically the invasion has fulfilled none of the stated goals of 1441. Although, of course, I suspect it has achieved several of the unstated goals.
Personally I reckon that by about 1998 there were no WMDs and the US & UK both knew it. And that the US & UK's 1441 Resolution was an vague attempt at justifying the forthcoming invasion of Iraq with the backing of the UN - an attempt that failed. So to me the 1441 Resolution is nonsense from the get go, but then I don't go around waving the thing about like it's some sort of rubber stamp that proudly proclaims the invasion "Kosher" (or should that be "Halal"?!?). I merely enjoy pointing out that as a justification for the invasion, it's far from ideal, and beset with many problems - not least of which is the issue of the current regime's non-compliance (to whit: where are all the WMDs?)
I do think there's a sinister aspect to not letting UNMOVIC back in though - it makes it easier to plant WMD evidence. Although perhaps I should be generous and give the US gov't the benefit of the doubt - maybe they're just being really stupid and leaving themselves wide open to this accusation. I don't really think they'll use 1441 as an excuse to reinvade - although it is a very far-fetched possiblity.
Just seen this interesting tidbit, BTW:
Key Phrase Was Dropped from UK Iraq Dossier
Tue September 23, 2003 12:33 PM ET
By Katherine Baldwin and Janet McBride
LONDON (Reuters) - The British intelligence chief responsible for a pre-war dossier on Iraq's weapons dropped a key sentence from it days before publication after prompting from Downing Street, an inquiry heard Tuesday.
He did it at the suggestion of Jonathan Powell, chief of staff to Prime Minister Tony Blair, the inquiry heard.
The offending sentence stated that former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was prepared to use chemical and biological weapons "if he believes his regime is under threat.""
Powell argued that phrase suggested Iraq was only a threat if attacked.
The revelation that Powell ordered the sentence to be omitted raises fresh doubts over the intervention of Blair's office in the compilation of the September dossier.
Hah! Laughable!
