|
20 Mar 2003, 14:00
|
#1
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 4,911
|
Have you read the UN Resolutions?
Just out of interest, how many people here have actually read resolutions 661, 678, 687 and 1441? I have come across a startling number of people who go on about these documents, who have never actually laid eyes on them.
__________________
I think it's time we blow this scene, get everybody and the stuff together..........
ok 3..... 2..... 1.. let's jam
|
|
|
20 Mar 2003, 14:09
|
#2
|
Bitch
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: North Yorkshire
Posts: 3,848
|
Re: Have you read the UN Resolutions?
Quote:
Originally posted by Radical Edward
Just out of interest, how many people here have actually read resolutions 661, 678, 687 and 1441? I have come across a startling number of people who go on about these documents, who have never actually laid eyes on them.
|
678 and 1441 yes, no to the others. Oh, and 660 but you failed to mention that one.
__________________
ACHTUNG!!!
Das machine is nicht fur gefingerpoken und mittengrabben. Ist easy
schnappen der springenwerk, blowenfusen und corkenpoppen mit
spitzensparken. Ist nicht fur gewerken by das dummkopfen. Das
rubbernecken sightseeren keepen hands in das pockets. Relaxen und vatch
das blinkenlights!!!
|
|
|
20 Mar 2003, 14:25
|
#3
|
King of The Fat Boys
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 3,332
|
I have never had the pleasure
Where could I get a copy? And are they 10 million pages each?
|
|
|
20 Mar 2003, 14:30
|
#4
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 4,911
|
Quote:
Originally posted by ChubbyChecker
I have never had the pleasure
Where could I get a copy? And are they 10 million pages each?
|
google, and they are pretty short. I suggest reading them in chronological order though. the way the very existance of 1441 shows a clear violation of 678 and 687 is rather nice though.
__________________
I think it's time we blow this scene, get everybody and the stuff together..........
ok 3..... 2..... 1.. let's jam
|
|
|
20 Mar 2003, 14:30
|
#5
|
Bitch
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: North Yorkshire
Posts: 3,848
|
Quote:
Originally posted by ChubbyChecker
I have never had the pleasure
Where could I get a copy? And are they 10 million pages each?
|
http://www.un.org/documents/scres.htm
Most are not very long.
__________________
ACHTUNG!!!
Das machine is nicht fur gefingerpoken und mittengrabben. Ist easy
schnappen der springenwerk, blowenfusen und corkenpoppen mit
spitzensparken. Ist nicht fur gewerken by das dummkopfen. Das
rubbernecken sightseeren keepen hands in das pockets. Relaxen und vatch
das blinkenlights!!!
|
|
|
20 Mar 2003, 14:34
|
#6
|
Bitch
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: North Yorkshire
Posts: 3,848
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Radical Edward
google, and they are pretty short. I suggest reading them in chronological order though. the way the very existance of 1441 shows a clear violation of 678 and 687 is rather nice though.
|
Iraq is not in breach of resolution 678 in any way and I challenge you to demonstrate otherwise.
__________________
ACHTUNG!!!
Das machine is nicht fur gefingerpoken und mittengrabben. Ist easy
schnappen der springenwerk, blowenfusen und corkenpoppen mit
spitzensparken. Ist nicht fur gewerken by das dummkopfen. Das
rubbernecken sightseeren keepen hands in das pockets. Relaxen und vatch
das blinkenlights!!!
|
|
|
20 Mar 2003, 14:41
|
#7
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 4,911
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Gayle29uk
Iraq is not in breach of resolution 678 in any way and I challenge you to demonstrate otherwise.
|
1441 acknowledges right at the beginning of the document:
Quote:
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,
Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,
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 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,
|
__________________
I think it's time we blow this scene, get everybody and the stuff together..........
ok 3..... 2..... 1.. let's jam
|
|
|
20 Mar 2003, 14:43
|
#8
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 4,911
|
oops, sorry yeap, 678... I keep getting lost because of the numbers looking so similar :P
breach of 687 though, is what I meant.
__________________
I think it's time we blow this scene, get everybody and the stuff together..........
ok 3..... 2..... 1.. let's jam
|
|
|
20 Mar 2003, 14:47
|
#9
|
Bitch
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: North Yorkshire
Posts: 3,848
|
Quote:
Recalling, and reaffirming its resolutions 660 (1990) of 2 August (1990), 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 662 (1990) of 9 August 1990, 664 (1990) of 18 August 1990, 665 (1990) of 25 August 1990, 666 (1990) of 13 September 1990, 667 (1990) of 16 September 1990, 669 (1990) of 24 September 1990, 670 (1990) of 25 September 1990, 674 (1990) of of 29 October 1990 and 677 (1990) of 28 November 1990.
Noting that, despite all efforts by the United Nations, Iraq refuses to comply with its obligation to implement resolution 660 (1990) and the above-mentioned subsequent relevant resolutions, in flagrant contempt of the Security Council,
|
678 applies only to 660, 661, and 662. Iraq being in breach on 687 has no bearing on 678.
[edit]Ok, I can understand how you'd mix 678 and 687 up I think I've made my point though, the only UN resolution authorising force to be used against Iraq is fully complied with.[/edit]
__________________
ACHTUNG!!!
Das machine is nicht fur gefingerpoken und mittengrabben. Ist easy
schnappen der springenwerk, blowenfusen und corkenpoppen mit
spitzensparken. Ist nicht fur gewerken by das dummkopfen. Das
rubbernecken sightseeren keepen hands in das pockets. Relaxen und vatch
das blinkenlights!!!
|
|
|
20 Mar 2003, 14:54
|
#10
|
Up yours
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Mighty Scotland
Posts: 491
|
|
|
|
20 Mar 2003, 15:10
|
#11
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 159
|
I read 1441 and 678. Parts of others.
__________________
The world never was good, but now it is getting worse.
|
|
|
20 Mar 2003, 15:57
|
#12
|
Klaatu barada nikto
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota
Posts: 3,237
|
"Decides to remain seized of the matter" is my personal favorite UNSC phrase.
You can almost imagine it means something.
__________________
The Ottawa Citizen and Southam News wish to apologize for our apology to Mark Steyn, published Oct. 22. In correcting the incorrect statements about Mr. Steyn published Oct. 15, we incorrectly published the incorrect correction. We accept and regret that our original regrets were unacceptable and we apologize to Mr. Steyn for any distress caused by our previous apology.
|
|
|
20 Mar 2003, 16:17
|
#13
|
Clerk
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 13,940
|
No, I haven't read it as I don't care what they say.
Doing so what probably presume I care about bourgeois international law. If I have to write a paper on them then maybe, but otherwise...
|
|
|
20 Mar 2003, 16:24
|
#14
|
Doh!
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit
Posts: 1,720
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Dante Hicks
No, I haven't read it as I don't care what they say.
Doing so what probably presume I care about bourgeois international law. If I have to write a paper on them then maybe, but otherwise...
|
Without reading them, it is difficult, if not impossible to comment on the legitimacy or otherwise of the action being taken by the US lead coalition.
__________________
Spinner: Kudos to Judge for having big cohones!
|
|
|
20 Mar 2003, 16:38
|
#15
|
Clerk
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 13,940
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Judge
Without reading them, it is difficult, if not impossible to comment on the legitimacy or otherwise of the action being taken by the US lead coalition.
|
The UN (in my eyes) is not a legitimate body. The US and UK states are not legitimate. The paperwork these bodies may or may not produce justifying their actions is of no real interest tp me on the issue on whether they are actly justly or not.
So that kinda takes care of that one, hmmm?
|
|
|
20 Mar 2003, 17:02
|
#16
|
Damn Dog
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,249
|
aye, ive read it, my dad got a copy from a friend and is always banging on about the fact that if you read it you will realise that war is justified, whereas i suggest that since so many countries in the world are in breach of un resolutions does that mean we have to go to war with each and every one of them? the contents of 1441 arent of any particular relevance IMO.
__________________
"that's a stupid thing to say and you're a stupid person for saying it."
the tolling gang
|
|
|
20 Mar 2003, 21:52
|
#17
|
Unreregistered User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 824
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Dante Hicks
The UN (in my eyes) is not a legitimate body. The US and UK states are not legitimate. The paperwork these bodies may or may not produce justifying their actions is of no real interest tp me on the issue on whether they are actly justly or not.
So that kinda takes care of that one, hmmm?
|
you are crazy
__________________
I have been unbanned.
|
|
|
20 Mar 2003, 22:03
|
#18
|
Clerk
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 13,940
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Kumnaa
you are crazy
|
How so? Do you believe the state is legitimate? The UN?
p.s. You have a "Blame-the-Frence" link in your sig. I'm sure it's hilariously irreverent but I wouldn't be throwing around the term "crazy" if I were you.
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 17:52.
| |