BS: No more human shields in Iraq

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Mar 03 - 03:31 PM

Not according to the treaties we signed, DougR. According to the treaties we signed, and the international laws that we have agreed to, we are accountable to the international body that is responsible for overseeing those international laws. We signed them, DougR, and because we signed them, we are bound by them.

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 15 Mar 03 - 08:59 PM

But CarolC, this present US administration is bound by the UN charter much as Hitler was bound by the pact he signed with Stalin. Until now I've always expected the US and the UK to act honourably and in good faith in international affairs, and I think a large part of the world has felt the same - though goodness knows, some countries had little reason to do so.

It will be many years before either country can retrieve such good standing after this coming outrage.

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Mar 03 - 09:20 PM

Nice thing about having the biggest stick, you don't have to follow rules, even if you made 'em. Yeah, all ya' gotta be capable of to get a job in Goerge Bush's governemnt is to have the capability to say two little words loudly and often: "Screw you!"

Yep, don't matter what the situation is the response is the same; "Screw you. I got the big stick. Wanta see it?"

Remind anyone of some of the other illustrious folks in the history books? Problem is, these folks always take their own prople down with their arrogance. Bush will be no different...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: DougR
Date: 16 Mar 03 - 02:53 PM

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?

I await your replies.

I originated this thread so I give myself permission to thread creep.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Mar 03 - 02:56 PM

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?

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Mar 03 - 03:08 PM

An article from a 'human shield' who remains, from The independent.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=387599

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: DougR
Date: 16 Mar 03 - 05:37 PM

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.?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: DougR
Date: 16 Mar 03 - 05:44 PM

Shambles: interesting article. One thing you can say for the gentlemen is he certainly practices what he preaches. He is likely to "go" the way he chooses.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Mar 03 - 05:51 PM

Nope, not US, 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.

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Mar 03 - 07:14 PM

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: No more human shields in Iraq
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Mar 03 - 08:47 PM

Well, Doug, we probably won't know if Saddam ever abided to the UN resolutions because in two days Bush is going to be sure that there is no evidence, one way or another. Reminds me of the Supreme Court stopping the recount just hours before Gore was going to retake Bush.

If Bush was not a *chosen frat drunk kid*, and tried his crap in the real world where the rest of us live, he would be imprisoned for obstruction of justice...

You need to wise up in the next 48 hours ot you will be an accomplice. Maybe not in this world's court, but the next.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: Gareth
Date: 16 Mar 03 - 09:06 PM

Yup Now the ultimate conspiracy theory. The war is designed to cover up the fact that Saddam Hussain acutually refused to adhere to UN resolutions.

I fear that there will be a very bloody war soon, and Bobert please bear in mind that it will have been primarily caused by you, yourself and the other "Usefull Idiots" acting as defacto cheerleaders for Saddam Hussain, self-indulging in rhetoric without responsability.

I am proud to say that the UK government acts in my namw - are you proud to say that represion and genocide by Hussain continues in your name, and with your active support ???

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: Troll
Date: 16 Mar 03 - 11:47 PM

Bobert, correct me if I'm wrong,(as I'm sure you will) but I thought that the US Supreme Court told the Florida Supreme Court that IF they were going to have a recount, it must be ALL the ballots in the state and not just the ones from the heavily Democratic South Florida counties and that the same standards as to what constituted a valid vote must be used throughout.
The US Supreme Court did not stop the count. They simply insisted thateveryones rights be protected, not just the voters in Palm Beach and Dade county.
BTW< several major newspapers did do a recount. In at least two of them, Bush won.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: toadfrog
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 12:23 AM

The most recent report I could find was from the Christian Science Monitor, approximately 8 hours old, which appears to state that those folks are still there. Although much displeased with Mr. Hussein, which I think goes without saying.

Whatever one thinks of the merit of being a human shield, who has more credibility - Fox News or the Christian Science Monitor?

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: toadfrog
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 12:39 AM

Doug R, do you have any source for that story, other than Fox News? Many of us do not believe Fox News is a reliable source. Many of us think that it is not so much "biased," as a source of false propaganda and disinformation. The Christian Science Monitor seems to believe the volunteers are going to hospitals, schools and the like. Why should anyone believe otherwise.

It's like that horrible story about the childrens' prison, which appeared so fast and then vanished. Will people believe just anything?

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: toadfrog
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 01:06 AM

Troll, if it is relevant, the Supreme Court stopped the count. They did not, repeat not, tell Florida to go back and count all the votes. They said, if a recount had been permissible, it would have been necessary to recount all the Florida counties. But that was not an option open to Florida, it was a course of action the Court said Florida should have chosen, and that because it had not been chosen, no recount would be permitted.

And then Justice O'Connor limited her own decision to its facts, so that it could not be cited for the proposition that voters in different counties should be treated equally. So that it appears to many of us that the argument which formed the basis of the decision was a rationalization, that no principle was involved, and that the only important thing to the Court was the result.

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: DougR
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 02:43 AM

Toad: I think by now, that even the sources you consider reliable support the story I reported on. There are evidently some shields bent on committing suicide that remained in Iraq to "guard" oil refineries and the like though.

Evidently you favor those media sources that only support your own point of view, is that right?

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 10:18 AM

Ahh, Monday morning... Just a couple of comments.

1. While I don't have access to the UN charter, I would be very suprised if it in any way limited a nation from taking preemptive action in any case in which that nation feels it's own best interests are threatened. It has happened on numerous occasions with nations who are still members of the UN. The UN oftern issues a statement decrying the actions, but that is about all. The UN totally lost it's credibility in the Bosnian/Serbian conflicts, as the European nations sat and wrung their hands until Clinton belatedly stepped in.

2. As I understand it, 1441 gives all the power the US needs to operate within the mandate of the UN. Anything else is gravy, and was designed to give Blair some political cover.

3. And this is an after-thought. Why the hell does France have a veto in the Security Council anyway? The veto was provided to those nations who the world acknowledged were the victors and world powers of their day. At that time France was a defeated nation whose organized army lost to the Germans, and then fought the Americans in several battles and sea engagements in southern France and North Africa. Some of the very first casualties the Americans suffered in Europe were by the Vichy French. The country now has a dying culture and language, which is propped up only by government subsidies and mandates. The only casualty suffered in the Iraqi nuclear reactor bombing by the Israelis in 1981 was a French scientist, who was helping them build the atom bomb.

Finally, in a study done several years ago, and recently revived on CNN, Saddam indicated his five mistakes made during the last Gulf War (and they are instructive)

a. He did not insure he had the atom bomb before invading Kuwait.

b. He did not continue his attack into the oil fields of Saudia Arabia.

c. He waited too long to conduct a preemptive attack against the Coalition forces, as they were off-loading in Saudia Arabia.

d. He waited too long before launching SCUDs at Israel, and then did it piecemeal.

e. He put too much emphasis on the French and Russian diplomacy to prevent the Coalition from invading.

According to the CNN (Wolf Blizer) report, these items were taken from an Iraqi after action study, commissioned by Saddam after the Gulf war. The CNN analysts were wondering how Saddam would respond this time, given the information in that study. I suspect we may be only hours away from finding out...

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: Wolfgang
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 10:38 AM

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack
occurs against a Member of the United Nations (Article 51 of the UN Charter) is the relevant bit here.

Very close to all analysists agree that a US war against Iraq cannot be founded on this article (the opinion was much more split, with good reasons, in the Afghanistan case). That's why most of the US argumentation does not mention article 51 but resolution 1441 which was very carefully worded to be ambiguous.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 11:29 AM

Wolfgang,

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 may be ambiguously worded - where it is not, is in reference to previous resolutions.

Where 1441 mentions "serious consequences" other resolutions mentioned in 1441 refer to enforcement of compliance by all necessary means.

As resolution 1441 specifically mentions those earlier resolutions and does not take precedence over those resolutions, they still stand in effect.

In 1441 Saddam was given one final opportunity to comply with existing UN Security Council Resolutions - he has failed to take that opportunity - the 1991 cease-fire agreement has been ignored - as a result of which hostilities may resume.

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: Wolfgang
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 11:43 AM

The Security Council...Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious
consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 11:48 AM

So since the Security Council is the body that is issuing these resolutions, it is the body that has the authority to decide what the serious consequences should be or when and how they should be applied. Nowhere in the above wording does the Security Council give the US president that authority.

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: Wolfgang
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 12:22 PM

My guess is that the US diplomats will use the following passage from UN resolution 1441 for argumentation beside the passage I have cited above:

The Security Council...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

Resolution 678, however, is about Kuwait as is resolution 660.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: Metchosin
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 12:34 PM

as I posted in another thread, MOOT POINT re the UN. They aren't asking the UN for a vote on a resoulution anymore. They are going to attack Iraq under International Law.......whatever that is.

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 12:34 PM

So in the case of those two resolutions (678 and 660), "the area" would be defined as Kuwait?

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 06:22 PM

Actually almost no military action occured in Kuwait at all; the Iraqis abandoned the city as the Coalition forces approached. With the possible exception of portions of the Basra road that may have been within Kuwait (the Highway of Death) all the rest of the actions occurred in Iraq, and still continue today under the enforcement of the No-Fly Zones. And if the Saddam decides to unleash poison gas in a preemptive strike of his own, the UN will lose every shread of credibility it has...

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 06:48 PM

My guess is that destroying the UN is one of objectives of the the Bush administration anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: Troll
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 08:13 PM

You could very well be right. I'm a nationalist and if someone is going to be in charge, I would prefer that it be the US. The UN has not shown me a great deal over the last 50 years that would warrant its continued existance. Saddam Hussein is an excellent case in point. He has been allowed to flout the UN resolutions with impunity for 12 long years and now the US is being pilloried because its president is taking the steps that the UN hasn't had the guts to take.
If the UN was such a great humanitarian organization, there would not be 800,000 murdered men, women and children in Rwanda nor would there be chattel slavery in Sudan.
The UN is an expensive farce and has earned the contempt with which it is held around the world.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: GUEST,Lurgi-Ridden Troll
Date: 17 Mar 03 - 08:29 PM

Okay Okay, I get the picture.

Next election, we should send human shields to all electoral booths in Florida!

LRT

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: Bagpuss
Date: 18 Mar 03 - 07:38 AM

On legality

an article

and another one

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: An Pluiméir Ceolmhar
Date: 18 Mar 03 - 09:58 AM

The UN's effectiveness was seriously limited by the combination of the cold war and the veto which the "victorious powers" of the second world war granted themselves. But even its limited capacity for action was undermined by the failure of the US to pay its dues and the failure of member countries generally to commit sufficient troops to provide effective deterrence in one operation after another. There was a window of opportunity with the ending of the cold war, but the other factors continued to cripple it. The problem with Bosnia, for example, was not the UN, it was the fact that so few troops were committed that the mission had to be scaled down to "protecting humanitarian intervention" in the vain hope that the presence of these inadequate forces would deter Milosevic, Karadzic and friends. Similarly, the force in Rwanda was derisory, but there only Africans were being killed, so that didn't really matter to the masters of the universe.

However impefect, the UN as an attempt to introduce the rule of law into international relations is in my book better than the rule of brute force. The current crisis drawn out of thin air by the Bush clique has now damaged the UN so badly that I reluctantly conclude it's really time to go back to the drawing-board. The UN and the League of Nations were both born out of world wars. Do we have to wait for another one before trying again?

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: Beccy
Date: 18 Mar 03 - 10:07 AM

Go, Gareth, go!!!

Beccy

Subject: RE: BS: No more human shields in Iraq
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 18 Mar 03 - 10:16 AM

I wonder how many Anericans in favour of the war do it from Troll's perspective: "Screw you - we're teh biggest." Not only is it a childish argument, but also it will fuel hatred of the US which it will not be possible to defend against with NMD.

Claymore, is it so offensive that the French government subsidises its culture and language? More offensive than that Ireland subsidises a Gaelic-language radio station, for instance? What exactly was your point here? On your point about 1441, Wolfgang has pointed out that the text was calculatedly ambiguous - ie open to more than one interpretation. It was the only way a consensus could be achieved behind it. The US ambassador, urging nations to support it notwithstanding any misgivings, gave a specific assurance that nothing in 1441 was a trigger and that it contained no "automaticity" (his word, not mine!). I would have thought that this qualification went some way towards ruling out one particular interpretation. Or were his words not worth a row of beans, just like the US sigature on the UN charter?