Originally posted by Arlo
Again ...
It's quite simple, actually. The U.N. has reaffirmed the sovereignty of all nations since it's formation. In your mind that means the U.N. has never once supported the use of force. It didn't support it in Korea. It didn't support it in Viet Nam. And, of course, it sure as hell doesn't support it in any region of the Middle East. And we all know the term "strong consequences" simply means sticking out your tongue and/or flipping the bird.
You go for it against that straw man. When you're done, try reading my post again. I didn't posit the UNSC has never supported the use of force.
I'm not quite sure how you can dismiss the affirmation of Iraqi sovereignty by saying "The U.N. has reaffirmed the sovereignty of all nations since it's formation." Seems to me that maybe they're trying to make and reinforce a point - you know, like you were in that post when you were using the same phrase again and again. Your stance appears to be rather like trying to prove god doesn't exist by arguing "God? Huh! The bible's always going on about that god fella."
I didn't posit what was meant by "serious consequences" (not strong) - I simply said that according to the members of the UN Security Council, the "serious consequences" were not a mandate for automatic force as both the US & UK Ambassadors to the UN said at the meeting of the UNSC on the day 1441 was voted on (see previous post and below). The Russians, Chinese and French Ambassadors also pointed this out. What the "serious consequences" were was an issue to be decided on by the UN Security Council, not the US.
08 November 2002
U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441
The Security Council,
Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990 (to) 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,
(Look at all the cooperation, would ya?) 
Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,
Recognizing the threat[/i] 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[/i],
Resolution 660 basically "Demands that Iraq withdraw immediately and unconditionally all its forces to the positions in which they were located on 1 August 1990" so we can safely skip all mention of 660, and the dependent resolutions such as 678 if there are no Iraqi troops are in Kuwait. Move along, there's no
cassus belli for you here.
Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations [/i]on Iraq
Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 [/i]
Resolution 687 also "Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the provisions above, a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990);" Note that Iraq isn't required to
implement 687's provisions - just to
accept them for the cease-fire to become effective. No cassus belli here.
Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687[/i]
Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council's repeated demands that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA, and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people[/i],
This absence was caused both directly (Butler was told to leave as a preamble to some bombing) and indirectly by the US, as well as the Iraqis. Certainly the Iraqis were refusing UNSCOM entrance to a few "national security" sites like palaces and 3C sites. Why? Because, the Iraqis claimed, UNSCOM had lots of US spies in it, a charge later confirmed by the US and UN. But that's really a BTW: there's not talk of consequences here.
Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq[/i],
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[/i],
The keyword is "acceptance", here: acceptance, not implementation.
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[/i],
See above for 687's cease-fire condition.
Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,
(Which pretty much means Iraq, Kuwait and the neighboring states need to stay within their own borders and not invade each other. THAT MEANS YOU, IRAQ!)[/i]
Of course this
equally applies to the USA and the UK, as "member states". Arguing against yourself there.
Commending the Secretary General and members of the League of Arab States and its Secretary General for their efforts in this regard,
Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,[/i][/b]
But no mention of how...
Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,
Ah the UN Charter! Article 2 says
"3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."
