BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?

Subject: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: DougR
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 02:58 AM

I posed this and another question in another thread and received only one reply. It was from Carol C., but she didn't address the questions. She just referred me to an obscure Australian Web Page (perhaps not to Australians) which contained an op-ed piece by a writer I was not familiar with, and a op-ed piece by the Director of Palestinan Media Watch. Both of her refrences were articles related to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict and had nothing to do with Iraq.

I think other questions of importance are: (1) If Saddam does not comply to the Seventeen U. N. Resolutions, what should the U. N. do to bring him into compliance? (2) Should the U. N. issue Resolutions if it is not prepared to enforce them?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: gnu
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 05:34 AM

What were, "...this and another question in another thread..." ? As for your questions above, they may be moot rather shortly.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: gnu
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 05:37 AM

oops ! Of course it is the question posed in the title. Too much wine and song last night. Better have at least another cup of tea before I go to work.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 06:00 AM

Doug,

You ask three questions:

1. Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?

Certainly if he wishes to remain in power. That was their reason for agreeing to comply with them during the negotiations that brought about the cease-fire in 1991.

Unfortunately, the Ba'athists need these weapons, or feel that they need these weapons, in order to lend credibility to threats against large ethnic factions within Iraq's borders.

Iraq's Kurds have enjoyed more effective protection, from the excesses of Saddam's regime, under "Operation Enduring Freedom" than the Shia muslems in the South. Iraq maintains a largely conscript army and has relied on conscripts from both the Kurdish and Shia communitities - the Kurds are no longer conscripted whereas the Shia's are still within Saddam's catchment capability. Many have fled to Iran, and many of the Shia men thrown off their land, dispossessed and forced to move elsewhere in Iraq have now chosen to seek asylum in Jordan and elsewhere. Saddam doesn't have the men so he has to have the weapons as a means of protection from possible internal insurrection.

From the short term good of the people of Iraq, Saddam should have complied with the resolutions. Had he done so UN sanctions would never have been imposed. They would however still have been subject to Sadam's rule of terror.


2. If Saddam does not comply to the Seventeen U. N. Resolutions, what should the U. N. do to bring him into compliance?

If Saddam does not comply, and does not honour his obligations to the international community, as represented by the United Nations Security Council. The terms of the cease-fire have been violated. In this particular case hostilities may recommence under the terms of existing UNSC Resolutions.


3. Should the U. N. issue Resolutions if it is not prepared to enforce them?

Ideally, No it should not. Acting responsibly the UN, in issuing its resolutions, should clearly instruct as to the course of action required to fulfil the requirements of the resolution, give a clear timetable under which such compliance shall be completed by, and finally, give a clear advance warning of the consequenses resulting from non-compliance. That warning must specifically state that enforcement by the international community use of military force is not ruled out.

Unfortunately the United Nations as a body, is not the organisation many perceive it to be. Irrespective of the ideals that brought about its creation, it has become a collection of states and governments who are represented primarily to further their own interests. And as such is seriously flawed, as is clearly demonstrated by the organisations ineffectuality, when faced with major crises that conflict with the self-interests of its member states.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 08:53 AM

I think other questions of importance are:

(1) If Israel does not comply with the U. N. Resolutions it has been in violation of for years, what should the U. N. do to bring it into compliance?

(2) Should the U.S. be allowed to violate agreements it made when it joined the U.N. without consequences?

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 09:54 AM

Greg F

Both your questions are covered in other threads

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Metchosin
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 11:13 AM

how many angels can you shove up the a** of the pope? and are they Christian angels, Buddist angels or Muslim angels?

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 11:14 AM

To the title question: Yes, he should have to avoid war. Now, the last two chances are (1) an overthrow of the regime from within and (2) Saddam choosing the exile option at the last possible moment.

I skip the second question as too difficult for me.

A big YES to question 3 (numbered (2) in the first post). Close to 99 % of all UN resolutions do not even mention means to enforce them. Like with individual people, they simply start by saying "You shouldn't do that" and so on. Agreement expressed in more or less strong words is their only weapon, in most cases.

Article 94

1. Each Member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with the decision of the International Court of Justice in any case to which it is a party.

Well, a much stronger UN might consider enforcing that article.

Wolfgang

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: DougR
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 11:30 AM

Thanks, Teribus and Wolfgang. Interesting replies, both of them.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 11:59 AM

Well yes, Saddam should comply with the resolutions. So should the US so should Israel. But since those states only have to comply with the resolutions with with they agree. Why single out Iraq?
(1) If Saddam does not comply to the Seventeen U. N. Resolutions, what should the U. N. do to bring him into compliance? Obviously they should enforce these resolutions against Iraq with their usual steadfast vigor.
(2) Should the U. N. issue Resolutions if it is not prepared to enforce them? Why should they stop now?


Teribus - PM
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 09:54 AM

Greg F

Both your questions are covered in other threads

as is Teribus's credibility. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Metchosin
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 12:11 PM

moot point, CBC has just announced that Colon Powell has stated that the US, Britain and Spain will no longer try for a UN resolution regarding Iraq as the cannot get support, therefore they will act on there own, as allowed by international law. Just curious, but what to what International Law is Colin Powell referring?

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 12:11 PM

JtS,

As I've said elsewhere - your priceless:

"If Saddam does not comply to the Seventeen U. N. Resolutions, what should the U. N. do to bring him into compliance?

Obviously they should enforce these resolutions against Iraq with their usual steadfast vigor."

Steadfast vigour - Eh?? Bloody priceless.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 12:13 PM

Teribus, thank you for making my point. Perhaps you should get your solictor to explain irony.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 12:16 PM

I posed this and another question in another thread and received only one reply. It was from Carol C., but she didn't address the questions...

DougR, you're really getting vicious these days. Is it not enough fiber in your diet or do you need to go see a doctor? (Or are you just trying to goad JtS into coming after you?)

Here is the thread in question, and the posts DougR refers to in them, so people can judge for themselves whether or not DougR's assesment of my responses is legitimate or just a big ole poke with a sharp stick.

No more human shields in Iraq

DougR:

Do any of you anti-Bush policy folks believe Saddam should abide by U.N. Resolutions?

Do any of you (same people)believe that the U.N. should enforce the Resolutions it imposes? If so, how should they do that if a country refuses to comply?

Me:

I think everybody should abide by UN resolutions. And I think the UN should diligently enforce those resolutions. They can start with the country that has violated the most resolutions for the longest period of time. Can you guess which country that would be, DougR?

DougR:

I know WHO you will say it is Carol C: Would you propose waging war against US?

Too bad the question could not be addressed seriously, but I'm not too surprised.

How would you propose the U.N. enforce its resolutions "diligently," Carol C.?

Me:

Nope, not US, DougR.

(quoting DougR) "How would you propose the U.N. enforce its resolutions "diligently," Carol C.?"

Well, it would help if some countries were consistant in their zeal for enforcing UN resolutions. In this case, the US is one of the countries I'm talking about but not the only one. Some countries (such as the US) see the UN as only being obligated to enforce those resolutions that they, themselves, want enforced, and practice obstructionist tactics when the UN tries to enforce resolutions that they (countries like the US) don't like. So a little less hypocracy (actually, not a little, a LOT less hypocracy) by countries like the US would go a long way to help.

And the US could lose the mindset that UN resolutions can be enforced by violating the UN charter.

(quoting DougR)"Too bad the question could not be addressed seriously, but I'm not too surprised."

Oh, Dougie!! I'm cut to the quick!!!

Here's a couple of hints for you in case you can't figure it out for yourself:

scroll down to number 6 in this page (about 2/3 of the way down)

The Charlotte Observer

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Metchosin
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 12:16 PM

where can I get a copy of International Law regarding invasion of another country?

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 03:50 PM

So far as I can see the inspectyion adn disarmament process was going ahead, and there was no reason to stop it at thsi stage and go to war.

However there is every mreason to think that at all stages Bush had this war scheduled for as soon as the military forces were in place, amnd that is now.

The nightmare for him would have been that Saddam would have been able to demonstrate that he had complied with the requirements, and I think that was probably the main factor in ruling out any further delays.

Maybe we'll now see whether Saddam actually has any Weapons of Mass Destruction at his disposal? If he doesn't unleash them do you think Bush and Blair will apologise? I imagine what would happen would be that they'd explain how their initial bombardment just happened to destroy them...

I suppose if there was a resolution becfore the Security Council condemning this attack as a breach of the United Nations Charter, which it clearly is, when the US and UK vetoed it, that would be what they call a reasonable use of the veto. Like all the many many previous times they've vetoed resolutions that woudl otherwise have been carried. (Notably in regard to Israel.)

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: katlaughing
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 04:40 PM

Too late, the little bastard is going to do what he's had his black heart set on from day one; he never gave a flying fuck what the UN did or did not sanction, nor the rest of the international community.

Mets, this looks like a good place to start, a lot of reading, but should have an answer somewhere: Questia.com.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 04:51 PM

Maybe we'll now see whether Saddam actually has any Weapons of Mass Destruction at his disposal? If he doesn't unleash them do you think Bush and Blair will apologise?

Problem is, it isn't necessary for the WMDs to be in Iraq now for the US and UK to "find" them there, or even for them to get "used" there. Remember, the US and UK have already set themselves up to do pretty much anything they want to by floating rumours that Iraqi soldiers have obtained US and UK military uniforms. So no matter what the US and UK do there, they can blame it all on Saddam's forces.

Metchosin, here's Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, "Action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression"

Charter of the United Nations

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 05:48 PM

I think it's very brave of CarolC and Jack The Sailor to take their stands in defence of Saadam and Arafat, and against Bush, here in America.

Of course, here in America, we have the right to dissent and freedom of speech.

If they were Iraqis or Palestinians in the Middle East, and taking similar stands against Saadam and Arafat, or defence of Bush, they would have been executed sumarily.

I thank God that I'm an American and I pray for the safe return of our forces and the liberation of the Iraqis from a dictator who has killed more than 1,500,000 of his own people since seizing power.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 06:08 PM

Here's an interesting article from the CBC. This article does a much better job of describing how I see things than the GUEST of 17 Mar 03 - 05:48 PM.

Reality Check: A New American Century

I'm not pro-Saddam or Arafat. I'm anti US as the dictator of a "benevolent global hegemony" (actual words of William Krystol, advisor to President Bush), and pro human rights.

of course, here in America, we have the right to dissent and freedom of speech.

Not for long, if the neo-Conservatives of this "Project for a New American Century" continue on the path they're taking.

I pray for the...liberation of the Iraqis from a dictator who has killed more than 1,500,000 of his own people since seizing power.

So are you for human rights, or against them, GUEST? You can't be both. You can only be for them, or against them. If you're for human rights, you are for human rights for all humans. Not just Americans and Israelis, and those being oppressed by Saddam Hussien. If you're not for the rights of all humans, then you're not for human rights. If you don't support basic human rights for all people of the world, then all you are is one of the people of privelege, seeking to protect that privelege.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 06:15 PM

It would seem that international law are with Bush and Blair.

Articles 40 and 51 are the only ones that refer directly to this issue. Both of these support the position of the United States and Britain.


from Article 40
Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned.

The actions of the Secuity Council do not in any way prejudice The USA's and Britain's right to engage Iraq


from Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations,

The Iraqi ground defenses have repeated fired upon Allied aircraft patrolling the "no fly zones" This can certainly be interpreted as an attack on the militaries of these countries.

All of the language of the charter refers to what the Security Council may do. The only way that USA and Britian would be defying the UN charter would be if the Security council were to sanction them. But that would be impossible because both governments have veto power. I'm not saying that what they are doing in Iraq is right. But this part of the UN charter certainly doesn't say that it is legally wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 06:19 PM

I'm very happy that such like minded people as CarolC and Jack The Sailor have found their true love.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 07:10 PM

JtS-Article 40 means that the UN will not, for example, call upon India to relinquish its claims to Kashmir to avoid conflict with Pakistan, even as a temporary measure. Neither the U.S. nor Britain have any "right to engage Iraq" that a cease-fire order would compromise. Article 51 is meant to allow countries to engage in actual self-defense. When occupying forces are given warning shots, that in no way is a threat to the national security of the occupiers, and is thus not a valid case of self-defense. Until the UN declares the cease-fire invalid, the U.S. and U.K. cannot resume offensive operations legally.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 07:43 PM

A country's rights could only pre prejudiced if it it has those rights in the first place, Having signed up not to make war except in line with the Charter of the United Nations means that a country has no right to make war except in consistence with that charter's provisions.

Shooting at hostile aircraft flying over your country cannot constitute a hostile attack on the country carrying out those overflights. The no-fly zones do not actually appear to have any legal status.

An ingenious argument that is, which Jack the Sailor makes about an act not being illegal unless the Security Council votes that it is, which would means that nothing that a country prepared to use its veto can ever be illegal.

I don't actually thing it stands up. A country ready to use its veto can of course stop the UN doing anything about it, but that's always been the case. However the body which has the right to determine the legality of a country's actions wouldn't be the Security Council, it'd be the International Court, or in certain cases the International War Crimes Tribunal.

You may recall that the International Court was able to determine that when the USA mined waters off Nicaragua some years ago, it was acting illegally. Of course the USA didn't take any notice of the judgement, but that is another matter. (The term "rogue state" is perhaps relevant here.)

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 07:43 PM

It is really quite clear.

Charter of the United Nations
Chapter VII

Action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression

Article 39

The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

There is no language declaring any act to be "illegal" unless the Security council says it is.

Forum Lurker, respectfully, if the Those articles "Meant" to say those things it would. The words "armed attack" are used, the words "national security" are not.

I believe that "Nothing shall impair", means nothing shall impair. It does not mean nothing except the absence of oof a UN declaration shall impair.

If you have documents other than these that indicate the "unlawful activity" of the US and Britian. I would love to see them, but this document does not even address the issue of what is not allowed except to say that the Security council can pass resolutions against goverments doing things which it doesn't like and back up these resolutions with sanctions up to and including military force. Unless the Security Council explicitly declares US and British actions to be "any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression" then these articles have no relevance to those actions.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 07:54 PM

MacGrath I believe that you have hit the nail squarely on the head "means that nothing that a country prepared to use its veto (does) can ever be illegal." I believe that it means exactly that. To my knowledge no permanent member of the security has ever signed away the right to wage war as it sees fit. That is precisely why the permanent members have veto power.


This, I believe, is an assumption on your part. "Having signed up not to make war except in line with the Charter of the United Nations "
can you show me exactly what traety this is and who the signatories are. I do not believe such a document exists. I would actually be delighted if someone were to prove me wrong. I'm certainly against this war as it is being waged. I believe it sets a very very bad precident. But I do not think that it violates any "International law" which either the US or Britain recognize.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Troll
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 07:59 PM

Forum Lurker, that is exactly what Saddam has been counting on; that the US would abide by the rules that he so easily ignores. He has spent 12 years flouting the agreement that he signed while he tried to rebuild his military machine with the help of, among others, the French.
So I guess that all the UN lovers want everyone to wait and continue to try the inspections and "diplomacy" that has worked so well since 1991. In the meantime, Saddam continues to work on his military hardware. I guess that when he is finally able to use nuclear blackmail to enforce his control of the whole Middle East the cry will go up for a UN resolution condemning his actions.
And he will give that resolution the same careful consideration that he has given the 16 or 17 that have been passed since the Gulf War.
And I am sure that someone will figure out a way to balme the whole thing on the US,the Republicans, and George Bush. Don't forget folks, you heard it here first.
BTW, I think the UN should enforce the resolutions that it has voted against Israel with the same diligence that it has enforced the resolutions against Iraq or any other country.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 09:37 PM

PEACE FOR OUR TIME
by Alistair Cooke, BBC

"I promised to lay off topic A - Iraq - until the Security Council makes a judgment on the inspectors' report and I shall keep that promise. But I must tell you that throughout the past fortnight I've listened to everybody involved in or looking on to a monotonous din of words, like a tide crashing and receding on a beach - making a great noise and saying the same thing over and over. And this ordeal triggered a nightmare - a day-mare, if you like.

"Through the ceaseless tide I heard a voice, a very English voice of an old man - Prime Minister Chamberlain saying: "I believe it is peace for our time" - a sentence that prompted a huge cheer, first from a listening street crowd and then from the House of Commons and next day from every newspaper in the land.

"There was a move to urge that Mr. Chamberlain should receive the Nobel Peace Prize. In Parliament there was one unfamiliar old grumbler to growl out: "I believe we have suffered a total and unmitigated defeat." He was, in view of the general sentiment, very properly booed down.

"This scene concluded in the autumn of 1938 with the British prime minister's effectual signing away of most of Czechoslovakia to Hitler. The rest of it, within months, Hitler walked in and conquered. "Oh, dear," said Mr. Chamberlain, thunderstruck. "He has betrayed my trust."

"During the last fortnight a simple but startling thought occurred to me -- every single official, diplomat, president, prime minister involved in the Iraq debate was in 1938 a toddler, most of them unborn. So the dreadful scene I've just drawn will not have been remembered by most listeners.

"Hitler had started betraying our trust not 12 years but only two years before, when he broke the First World War peace treaty by occupying the demilitarised zone of the Rhineland. Only half his troops carried one reload of ammunition because Hitler knew that French morale was too low to confront any war just then and 10 million of 11 million British voters had signed a so-called peace ballot. It stated no conditions, elaborated no terms, it simply counted the numbers of Britons who were "for peace".

"The slogan of this movement was "Against war and fascism" - chanted at the time by every Labour man and Liberal and many moderate Conservatives - a slogan that now sounds as imbecilic as "against hospitals and disease". In blunter words a majority of Britons would do anything, absolutely anything, to get rid of Hitler except fight him.

"At that time the word pre-emptive had not been invented, though today it's a catchword. After all, the Rhineland was what it said it was: a part of Germany. So to march in and throw Hitler out would have been pre-emptive - wouldn't it? Nobody did anything and Hitler looked forward with confidence to gobbling up the rest of Western Europe country by country - "course by course", as growler Churchill put it.

"I bring up Munich and the mid-30s because I was fully grown, on the verge of 30, and knew we were indeed living in the age of anxiety. And so many of the arguments mounted against each other today, in the last fortnight, are exactly what we heard in the House of Commons debates and read in the French press.

"The French especially urged, after every Hitler invasion, "negotiation, negotiation". They negotiated so successfully as to have their whole country defeated and occupied. But as one famous French leftist said: "We did anyway manage to make them declare Paris an open city - no bombs on us!"

"In Britain the general response to every Hitler advance was disarmament and collective security. Collective security meant to leave every crisis to the League of Nations. It would put down aggressors, even though, like the United Nations, it had no army, navy or air force.

"The League of Nations had its chance to prove itself when Mussolini invaded and conquered Ethiopia (Abyssinia). The League didn't have any shot to fire.

"But still the cry was chanted in the House of Commons - the League and collective security is the only true guarantee of peace.

"But after the Rhineland, the maverick Churchill decided there was no collectivity in collective security and started a highly unpopular campaign for rearmament by Britain, warning against the general belief that Hitler had already built an enormous mechanised army and superior air force. But he's not used them, he's not used them - people protested.

"Still, for two years before the outbreak of the Second War you could read the debates in the House of Commons and now shiver at the famous Labour men - Major Attlee was one of them - who voted against rearmament and still went on pointing to the League of Nations as the saviour.

"Now, this memory of mine may be totally irrelevant to the present crisis. It haunts me. I have to say I have written elsewhere with much conviction that most historical analogies are false because, however strikingly similar a situation may be to an old one, there's usually one element that is different and it turns out to be the crucial one. It may well be so here. All I know is that all the voices of the 30s are echoing through 2003."

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 09:57 PM

In reality, GUEST, the current situation is going to have leaders of every poe-dunk third world country scambling for a nuke! Seems that "nukes" is all that the "super Power" respects. Yeah, sure, there will be a mad scramble to fix thousands of years worth of world problems by the Super Power but in doing so, it will exhaust it's own resources: something that is now resembling the light (the train) in the tunnel... Hmmmmm? What to do?

Well, Einstien said that "Insanity is repeating a behavior expecting different results." Maybe it's time, after thousands of years of men killing each other, that mankind makes a stand that it's time to move on. Yeah, the planet is too small and tribalized for the "luxary" of war!

This is what CarolC and Jacl the Sailor and Larry and lots of us have been saying. I know that it is a foriegn concept by reading the usual cast of naysayers but ya' got to start somewhere. Why not under out watch. Well, soon as we get the present Idiot in Chief retired, that is...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Mar 03 - 12:33 AM

I get the impression lately that G.W. is asking Iraq not merely to disarm its alleged weapons of "mass destruction" (which may very well not even exist) but to disarm, period...completely disarm his nation, in other words.

It's hard to figure why any country would be willing to do that with 250,000 hostile troops and the World's biggest military machine poised on its borders, with 2/3's of its airspace violated on a daily basis by hostile aircraft, and with direct attacks upon its ground installations having been conducted on a regular basis for the last 13 years.

It's incomprehensible that Iraq or anyone else would be willing to unilaterally disarm under such circumstances, unless they wished to simply surrender themselves unconditionally to a foreign occupying army without raising a hand in their own defence.

Amazing newspeak from Big Brother in the White House is what I call it. Truly amazing. What is more amazing is how few Americans are willing to recognize this kind of Nazi thug blackmail and arrogance for what it truly is.

There is anger out there in the World now. Tremendous anger. And disgust. I now understand how my father felt about the German Reich in 1939 to '45, after they had lied and bullied their way into Austria and Czechoslovakia, after they had smashed up small countries like Denmark, Holland, Norway, Yugoslavia, Greece, and Belgium, after they had violated and scorned every principle of diplomacy and common moral conduct...and with an utterly breathless sense of their own moral superiority! I understand perfectly how he felt. He was ready to do anything to stop them.

Saddam is a very nasty dictator, but that is all to the convenience of the scoundrels who are presently running US national policy. He is a godsend to them, a propagandist's dream. He is the excuse for advancing their desired world program to the next logical step.

And this war is not being waged to free anyone, it's being waged to secure oil and strategic interests in the Middle East and in the whole World, to the detriment of all nations other than the USA, Israel and the U.K.

And the whole World knows it (except behind the media walls of America).

There is indeed an Axis of Evil in this world, but it's not the one Bush has referred to in his speeches. Those are just his convenient scapegoats of the moment, his sacrificial goats waiting for the slaughter.

In the first Gulf War over 1,000 Iraquis died for each American soldier killed.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 18 Mar 03 - 01:11 AM

JtS-If the U.S. attacks Iraq, it violates the terms of the cease-fire. Until the UN declares the cease-fire broken or invalidated, it is still in effect FOR BOTH SIDES. You can't honestly believe that it constitutes self-defense for an occupier to assault and dismantle the government of an occupied country for warning shots which have never, in twelve years, threatened to cause harm to USAF equipment, much less soldiers.

Troll-No evidence has yet been presented, even on the brink of war, that Saddam has nuclear weapons. The United States has threatened the use of nuclear weapons in the Middle East; Iraq has not. As far as Israel is concerned (wherever that topic sprang up from), the UN has enforced all of its resolutions equally: it spends no more effort on the 1948 declaration of Israeli sovereignty than it does on its subsequent resolutions.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Mar 03 - 01:22 AM

Bush is also, of course, suggesting that Saddam flee the country.

Well, it would be just ducky if he did (and VERY inconvenient for America's overall strategy in the region!), but I seriously doubt that he will.

After all, let's just put the shoe on the other foot. Suppose that a tremendously powerful alliance of foreign powers had been bombing the USA for the last ten years or so, applying crippling sanctions, and enforcing no-fly zones over all of the Northeast, the Mid-West, California, Texas, and the Mississippi regions (kindly allowing the USA to continue flying planes out of Maryland, Pennsylvania, Washington, and a few other isolated states here and there).

Suppose further that the alliance had demanded that the USA "immediately" disarm. I mean in a matter of days. Let's say...in 48 hours.

Or alternately...the alliance demands that Bush & Cheney & Powell within the next 48 hours should flee the country to some unnamed destination, thus allowing regime change, said regime change to be accomplished by the foreign alliance with immediate cooperation on the part of the American people. This would be accompanied, of course, by the "liberation" of the American people from their tyrranical rulers by the Alliance.

Well? Watcha gonna do, America?

Would you agree to such terms...or would you fight?

Ask yourself. It's that simple.

Oh, but I forgot...you're the "good guys", right? And international alliances never form against good guys, do they? Heavens, no!

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Mar 03 - 02:37 AM

Forum Worker, you are speaking of how things should be our how you would like them to be. There is nothing in the Charter of the United Nations Chapter VII which requires a resolution to end the ceasefire. I spoke of the rules which were posted. In the absence of other rules or laws, I stand by my previous statement.

Hawk, If Saddam flees then The US and Britain will still insist that they oversee the transitional government and the destruction of weapons facilities. It's a good thing there isn't a megapower trying to disarm the USA. It would really put a crimp in their plans to force peace on the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 18 Mar 03 - 08:48 AM

The first tiny bit of good news in these bad news times came just on my ticker:

Saddam has declared he'd never go into exile.

Now bearing in mind that the last three times Saddam has declared he would never... each time he has given in hours before a deadline that brings me a little hope that he is a bit saner than our last dictator was.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: artbrooks
Date: 18 Mar 03 - 09:11 AM

To return to DougR's perfectly valid questions:

1) Should Saddam comply with {UN} resolutions? Yes.

2) If Saddam does not comply to the Seventeen U. N. Resolutions, what should the U. N. do to bring him into compliance? IMHO, when and if peaceful means are exhausted, force compliance.

3) Should the U. N. issue resolutions if it is not prepared to enforce them? No.

Also IMHO, Saddam has no intention of ever complying with any resolutions, the UN, or at least some members of it, has no intention of ever allowing a decision of whether or not peaceful means are exhausted, and none of this has anything to do with Dubya's penis envy.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 18 Mar 03 - 10:30 AM

LH-I'd support the idea of regime change. No one they installed could be more oppressive AND more incompetent than Dubya, and I'd rather have the gain in one area or another.

JtS-look at the ceasefire text. I don't recall it saying that the U.S. could resume hostilities whenever it wanted, and the basic idea of a cease-fire is that BOTH sides stop. If you want to argue that because the cease-fire doesn't explicitly deny America the right to resume hostilities at any time, we reserve that right, go ahead, but you'll be missing the point even more than you already are.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: katlaughing
Date: 18 Mar 03 - 10:41 AM

Wolfgang, I hope that you are right. Thanks for posting that.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Troll
Date: 18 Mar 03 - 10:55 AM

Lurker, the cease-fire was based on the premise that Saddam -who had LOST THE WAR- would disarm as he promised to do. The US and its allies set the conditions, not Saddam. We did it so that no more Iraqis would have to die but implicit in the cease-fire agreement is the fact that IF Saddam did not comply with ALL the terms, the shooting could and would start again.
I suppose that the consequences of non-compliance should have been spelled out but I prefer to believe that it was an oversight instead of a deliberate omission. Remember, the document was put together fairly quickly and it is probable that everyone expected Saddam to comply.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 18 Mar 03 - 10:59 AM

However, the ceasefire resolution did not give the US the authority to decide what should be done about a breach of ceasefire. That should be decided by the UN. There was no use of the trigger term in that resolution. Back to the same argument again. The US is not the UN, it does not have the right to decide what should be done in isolation of the UN.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Kim C
Date: 18 Mar 03 - 11:55 AM

If Saddam Hussein gives even an inkling of a flying flip about his country, he'll abide by the resolutions.

How many of you would give someone 12 years to keep their word?

Go find some Kurdish refugees and ask them what they think. There is a large group of them here in Nashville who were ready for the Can of Whoopass to be unleashed a LOOOOOONG time ago. These are some of the people who had to endure Saddam's atrocities. Sure, you go tell them we need to negotiate some more, and see what you get.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: DougR
Date: 18 Mar 03 - 12:08 PM

So thank you, Artbrooks, for attempting to redirect the conversation to the subjects of this thread.

It is mightly difficult to get Bobert & Company to focus on directly asked questions. They prefer to ramble on and re-type the same old stuff they have been typing in multiple threads. How about it, Bobert? Will you address the questions this thread asks? kat? gnu?

Carol C feels she has addressed the questions. She says the U. N. should enforce resolutions imposed on all countries. I agree with that. What she fails to address, though, is HOW they should be enforced if the countries fail to comply. Carol?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Mar 03 - 12:18 PM

DougR, the UN can only do what the member nations allow it to do. So my answer was very much on point. The US is one of the most obstructionist of the member nations in the UN, using its veto power in ways that cripple the UN's ability to do what is needed. I find myself wondering what would happen if none of the UN member nations had veto power. I don't know enough about the ramifications of such a change to really have a solid opinion on it, but I do wonder about it.

As far as specific strategies to force compliance, it would seem to me that each situation would necessitate a different approach. I seriously doubt that there can be a "one size fits all" approach to enforcing resolutions.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 18 Mar 03 - 01:12 PM

Kim C- the Kurds are safe from Saddam for the moment, but they're worried about the Turks, who may gain control of northern Iraq (where the Kurdish population is) in the event of war, and have just as bad a human rights record as Saddam where it involves the Kurds.

artbrooks-I agree, but the UN lacks the ability to enforce resolutions unless the entire security council likes the idea. I think CarolC's idea has some merit.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Mar 03 - 10:15 PM

Actually, the United Nations should function the way any national or town assembly does, I think. It is not very sensible to allow any one permanent member of the Security Council to veto a resolution it doesn't like, while denying that privilege to all the other smaller countries. Ideally, no one should have a veto. To allow big countries to veto and small countries not to is undemocratic, and was done in order to maintain the rule of the powerful few over the rest of the nations. To allow one player to veto a resolution is foolish. It's fine for someone to vote against a resolution or abstain, but why should they be allowed to veto it?

If they don't like it, they can always get mad and walk out...and that's been done from time to time.

If voting was instead done in the General Assembly, and if the resolution required the assent of 75% of all the member nations to pass, that would be a far more democratic system, worthy of respect in the World.

It would also utterly screw the original plan the USA and its main allies after WWII had in mind when they set up the U.N.

Accordingly, you will not see it happen.

The U.N., like the present USA is a system "of the rich, by the rich, for the rich". Not quite what they taught you in American school, is it? Too bad. Jefferson would not be pleased if he saw what has happened since 1776.

I agree with Carol. No nation should have veto power. If that were the case, the French would not have needed to threaten a veto, because the resolution would have failed in any case if brought to a vote. Knowing this, America would have withdrawn it, just as they have done anyway, veto or not veto. That resolution was a dead duck.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Mar 03 - 10:56 PM

Forum Lurker, you said, to me "but you'll be missing the point even more than you already are." It is you who are missing the point

Iraq has violated the ceasfire may times, both by failing to disarm and by talking pot shots at allied aircraft. One side cannot be bound by a ceasfire once the other has broken it. That's pretty simple and since there is no law stating other wise and there are no articles about broken cease fires other then the security council having the the option to apply additional pressure, and since there is specific language saying that "Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned." Then vis a vis the afforementioned section of the UN Charter the United States and Britain are not breaking "International Law".

If you think that they are breaking international law, go and arrest them. You will find that the permanent members of the UN security council are the only "International Law" that matters. When I made that point it wasn't to open a discussion on "the basic idea of a ceasefire" or anything like that. I was simply looking at what was written in Chapter VII of the UN charter. Please do not counter those words by making things up, assuming things not written, or saying how you would like things to be.   

I'm tired of arguing the same points again and again. Until and unless someone finds other applicable treatys or statutes, I'm done talking about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Mar 03 - 11:20 PM

Jack - You say..."Iraq has violated the ceasefire many times, both by failing to disarm and by talking pot shots at allied aircraft."

My friend, what were those aircraft doing? They were bombing Iraqui territory. They have been doing so for quite some time with righteous zeal, and they dropped a cumulative total of about 20 million pounds of explosives on Iraq between Dec 98 and Sep 99! (this was not considered worthy of being called a "war" by the press, however...)

What friggin' country would NOT shoot at foreign aircraft under such conditions??? I sure as hell would have taken "pot shots" at them if I was Iraqui! You bet I would!

And what friggin' country would disarm itself under such conditions?

What ceasefire? Britain and the USA have been fighting a limited and undeclared war on Iraq ever since the Gulf War, by one means or another.

My God...!

They couldn't find Osama (who HAS attacked the USA), and they couldn't just stand around looking ineffectual before the American public and the world, so they they are going after Iraq instead, when Iraq has NOT attacked them, so they can look victorious and "in control" and at the same time can steal the 2nd largest oil reserves in the World from a crippled and impoverished country under a vicious dictator they once funded and armed so he could kill Iranians and Kurds for the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Mar 03 - 11:20 PM

When the UN was forming, it was thought to be desirable to have the largest powers at the table. Neither the UK, the US, the USSR nor France would have participated without veto power. None would have or will participate if a vote of the general assembly were binding upon them. The UN is mechanism for dispute resolution, not a world government. The UN is just a place where countries can talk and make deals.

Should Trinidad have exactly the same voice as China? Should ten little countries in the Carribean have ten times the voice that Britain does? Who's army would enforce a resolution against a Nato power, China or Russia without starting world war three? UN permission is desirable but not required. Should all resolutions be enforced? I would say actually no. Most resolutions are a statement of what the UN wants, not what it is prepared to or able to enforce. Israel/Palestine is a mess, a mess made by Britain and endorced by the UN. Make no mistake, the UN would have never created Israel if Britian had been against it. The UN is not equipped to clean up that mess, the only country with the means to do so is the US. UN resolutions don't mean squat if they aren't backed by real governments with real militaries.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Mar 03 - 11:36 PM

Little Hawk, they agreed to those terms as a condition of the Cease fire. Iraq breaks the ceasefire, the ceasfire is over. US and Brit forces were there enforcing the ceasefire. I think, for the sake of politics, they showed restraint. Yes they have been at war since 1991. Yes the war was undeclared, but the US congress and the UN gave George Bush permission to start it. I agree that dropping bombs is a bad thing to do but so is trying to make Nuclear weapons when you agreed not to.

This isn't about Osama. It has no direct connection to Al Qaeda. its about trying to prevent a nuclear bomb from detonating in New York harbour five ten twenty or fifty years from now. I don't think it will work. I'm worried that they'll do more damage then they will prevent, but that damage will, for the most part, not be in the USA. Are they right or are they wrong? I don't know, but that is what I believe this war is about.

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Troll
Date: 18 Mar 03 - 11:43 PM

Well said Jack!

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Should Saddam comply with Resolutions?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Mar 03 - 11:45 PM

Okay, Jack, fair enough. I understand what you believe, and it's simply different from what I believe in certain respects.

I wonder if you get a chance, maybe you could read a very interesting book called "Bush's Brain", by two journalists from Texas, both of whom know Bush going way back, and evidently consider him a rather likeable guy.

If you do, give special attention to the last couple of chapters in the book "General Rove" and "The Baghdad Road" for some powerful insights into when and how and why Bush decided to go after Iraq.

The authors know far more about George Bush than you or I do, they know him personally, and they do not demonize him at all, but they do see some serious problems with his foreign and domestic policies.

I hope you do get to read it.

Sleep well.

- LH