So, Shock and Awe begins..

[M_Drudge]

Yes, clear. "Dire consequences" are authorized for Iraq's failure to disarm. I hardly think an extension of the timeframe for disarmament is a "dire consequence", do you?

I guess you aren't shocked that the US have found at least 2 Scud missiles were shot down after they were fired toward troops. These are missiles that the infamous and soundly inept Hans Blix claimed were all destroyed back in 1992.

"Dire consequences" indeed.

[Gayle29uk]

Originally posted by M_Drudge
The UN resolutions are pretty clear,

Indeed they are, resolution 678 clearly allows the use of force if Iraq does not comply with resolution 660 and subsequent resolutions 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677. Feel free to dig through that list and show me a point where Iraq is in breach of any of those resolutions because no resolution following 678 has authorised the use of force against Iraq, specifically 1441 does NOT authorise force (which is 'all necessary means' in UN speak rather than the language of 1441 which uses 'serious consequences' meaning everything short of force).

and for anyone to believe that the US would do this in violation of international law is preposterous, nay, absurd.

Are you familiar with the legal term 'res ipsa loquiter'?

[Gayle29uk]

Originally posted by M_Drudge
"Dire consequences" indeed.

See my previous post, serious not dire. I also suggest you read a few more UN documents and you'll find what that really means in diplomatic terms.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by M_Drudge
Yes, clear. "Dire consequences" are authorized for Iraq's failure to disarm. I hardly think an extension of the timeframe for disarmament is a "dire consequence", do you?

I guess you aren't shocked that the US have found at least 2 Scud missiles were shot down after they were fired toward troops. These are missiles that the infamous and soundly inept Hans Blix claimed were all destroyed back in 1992.

"Dire consequences" indeed.

it does not specifically legitimate a war. therefore a war is not legitimated. what do you think this whole discussion in the last few weeks were about ??? the war would have been started weeks ago if that resolution would allow a war.

[M_Drudge]

Originally posted by wu_trax
it does not specifically legitimate a war. therefore a war is not legitimated. what do you think this whole discussion in the last few weeks were about ??? the war would have been started weeks ago if that resolution would allow a war.

Did you know that the UN could have voted to disallow war? Why didn't that happen? Because the US could have vetoed it? Not hardly. You should delve a bit deeper into who may very well profit from this war, both economically AND geopolitically. It's hardly the US.

Oh, and while we're at it, why hasn't the UN issued a statement condemning the US for its actions?

Let's get real here, and stop playing these little word games.

What is your definition of "dire consequences", and what is your definition of "disarming in complete and total agreement with UN resolutions"?

[M_Drudge]

Originally posted by Gayle29uk
[b]Indeed they are, resolution 678 clearly allows the use of force if Iraq does not comply with resolution 660 and subsequent resolutions 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677. Feel free to dig through that list and show me a point where Iraq is in breach of any of those resolutions because no resolution following 678 has authorised the use of force against Iraq, specifically 1441 does NOT authorise force (which is 'all necessary means' in UN speak rather than the language of 1441 which uses 'serious consequences' meaning everything short of force).

Are you familiar with the legal term 'res ipsa loquiter'?

Can you say "Scud Missiles".

Oh, and war is a serious consequence. Do tell, what is your interpretations of "serious" consequences. If it has anything to do with "Verbal Reprimand" and the like, save it.

War is pretty serious to me.

There are people one helluva lot smarter than you or I who have access to the very same documents. I can't imagine why the UN has not said, flat-out, that we are in violation of military law, can you? They are such a valued and effective organization! There have been 80 wars since the inception of the UN, and the UN hasn't done a damned thing in any of them.

Make that 81.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by M_Drudge
Did you know that the UN could have voted to disallow war? Why didn't that happen? Because the US could have vetoed it? Not hardly. You should delve a bit deeper into who may very well profit from this war, both economically AND geopolitically. It's hardly the US.

Oh, and while we're at it, why hasn't the UN issued a statement condemning the US for its actions?

because the us would have vetoed it, most likely, why else ??
oh, and please enlight me and tell me who will benefit out of this economically.

Let's get real here, and stop playing these little word games.

What is your definition of "dire consequences", and what is your definition of "disarming in complete and total agreement with UN resolutions"?

'serious consequences' to me means a new resolution with an ultimatum and the legitimation of war in case the old resolutions are not fullfilled. BUT the inspections were more or less working, the cooperation by iraq was better than ever before, so there was no ****in point for a new resolution.

[M_Drudge]

Originally posted by wu_trax
...BUT the inspections were more or less working, the cooperation by iraq was better than ever before, so there was no ****in point for a new resolution.

12 years.

12 years they have had to disarm.

12 years to get rid of the scud missiles they have already used.

I suppose Iraq's cooperation would have been even better in 12 more years?

Again, I ask you,...where would all this end?

Exactly where it is ending now.

The US is just saving a whole lot more lives by doing it this way.

Do you think the world community would have given, say, the US, 12 years to disarm, had it been the other way around?

Hardly.

[Gayle29uk]

Originally posted by M_Drudge
Can you say "Scud Missiles".

Oh, and war is a serious consequence. Do tell, what is your interpretations of "serious" consequences. If it has anything to do with "Verbal Reprimand" and the like, save it.

Only to someone not versed in UN language. 'All necessary means' is the UN language for war/force. 'Serious consequences' means anything up to but not including war. Clear now?

War is pretty serious to me.

Apparently not.

There are people one helluva lot smarter than you or I who have access to the very same documents. I can't imagine why the UN has not said, flat-out, that we are in violation of military law, can you?

I can think of several reasons. The main one is that as of now the UN is dead, the whole world can see the US will ignore the will of the international community if it sees fit to do so so the UN no longer has a point. What is the point in a dead organisation censuring the country that effectively killed it?

They are such a valued and effective organization!

They were all we had you idiot, no matter how effective they were or weren't they were all we had.

There have been 80 wars since the inception of the UN, and the UN hasn't done a damned thing in any of them.

Give me details and I'll tell you what the UN did. You list me any conflict and I'll tell you what the UN did about it and whether force was used and what labguage the resolution used.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by M_Drudge
12 years.

12 years they have had to disarm.

12 years to get rid of the scud missiles they have already used.

I suppose Iraq's cooperation would have been even better in 12 more years?

i dont give a damn if it takes another 12 years. personally i dont even care if it doesnt work at all, because the iraq simply is no threat at all.

Again, I ask you,...where would all this end?

Exactly where it is ending now.

there is a difference between a war legitimated by the uno and the current actions. the diffrence is the support by the rest of the world.

The US is just saving a whole lot more lives by doing it this way.

Do you think the world community would have given, say, the US, 12 years to disarm, had it been the other way around?

Hardly.

would the us allow inspectors in their weapon facilities? i doubt it.
(i think i read something about treaty qabout the destruction of b and/or c-weapons, signed by the us. unfortunatly the us doesnt allow anyone to check. unfortunatly i cant access google right now, so i cant provide a link)

[Jammers]

Is this UN language actually defined somewhere, or is it just the accepted usage? If its defined in a resolution, then it has meaning, and the war moves towards illegality, whereas if it has no binding definition then the war is sort of legal, or at the very least, not illegal.

[Scoot951]

Originally posted by Gayle29uk
Only to someone not versed in UN language. 'All necessary means' is the UN language for war/force. 'Serious consequences' means anything up to but not including war. Clear now?

Serves them right for not saying what they mean. If this brings down the level of politispeak that'll be at least 1 benefit of the war.



Before the war I supported peace, but now that it's started I'm supporting them for a quick end.

[Gayle29uk]

Originally posted by Jammers
Is this UN language actually defined somewhere, or is it just the accepted usage? If its defined in a resolution, then it has meaning, and the war moves towards illegality, whereas if it has no binding definition then the war is sort of legal, or at the very least, not illegal.

The key question is whether Resolution 678 still allows Member States to use ‘all necessary means’ to ensure compliance with subsequent resolutions, or alternatively whether the ‘severest consequences’ envisaged by the Security Council in Resolution 1154 (now backed up by the demands in Resolution 1205) include the use of force by Member States.

The International Court of Justice, in the Namibia Advisory Opinion (1971) ICJ Reports 15, 53 stated that ‘The language of a resolution of the Security Council should be carefully analyzed … having regard to the terms of the resolution to be interpreted, the discussions leading to it, the Charter provisions invoked and, in general, all circumstances that might assist in determining the legal consequences…’
This has been described as ‘one of the very few authoritative guides to the interpretation of Security Council resolutions’

LAW does not consider that the current resolutions implicitly allow the use of force. The wording of the Gulf War resolutions shows that, when the Security Council intends to authorize the use of force, it does so in clear terms. Resolution 678 referred to the use of ‘all necessary means’, phrasing which does not appear in any subsequent Resolution relating to Iraq. The phrase ‘all necessary means’ has also been used when the Security Council authorized intervention in Rwanda, Bosnia, Somalia and Haiti.

Resolution 686, paragraph 4, which marked the provisional cessation of hostilities, expressly preserved the right to use force under Resolution 678. However, Resolution 687, which marked the permanent ceasefire, uses no such terms. This demonstrates a clear recognition that the right to use force requires express terms if it is to be continued. The absence of any clear terms in any resolution after 686 leads us to the conclusion that no such use of force was authorized.

Further, Resolution 687 states that the Security Council

‘[d]ecides to remain actively seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the region.’

This clearly contemplates that the Security Council remains seized of the matter and will itself decide what further steps may be required for the implementation of that resolution.

The Secretary General of the United Nations has made it clear that Resolution 678 was directed at a unique and specific situation:

‘The Iraqi invasion and occupation of Kuwait was the first instance since the founding of the Organization in which one Member State sought to completely overpower and annex another. The unique demands presented by this situation have summoned forth innovative measures which have given practical expression to the Charter’s concepts of how international peace and security might be maintained.’

Those ‘unique demands’ relating to the invasion and occupation are no longer in existence. The Secretary General’s remarks underline how exceptional the United Nations considers the use of force, and how dependent the decision to use force was on the fact that Iraq had actually invaded another Member State. No such action has been taken by Iraq since then.
transnational.org

[M_Drudge]

Originally posted by wu_trax
[b]i dont give a damn if it takes another 12 years. personally i dont even care if it doesnt work at all, because the iraq simply is no threat at all.
[b]
there is a difference between a war legitimated by the uno and the current actions. the diffrence is the support by the rest of the world.

would the us allow inspectors in their weapon facilities? i doubt it.
(i think i read something about treaty qabout the destruction of b and/or c-weapons, signed by the us. unfortunatly the us doesnt allow anyone to check. unfortunatly i cant access google right now, so i cant provide a link)

Wow, you are really unread, aren't you? There are international inspectores monitoring the destruction of chemical weapons right now.

Why should the US get the "rest of the world" to support an action primarily designed to defend its own interests and, eventually, it's own borders. It's just a bennie that others will now be safe from a tyrant.

In 12 more years, the Iraqi's would, most likely, have the use of a functioning nuclear device. I suppose that would be acceptable to you?

[Woof]

The BBC have reported that there have been more Cruise missles fired in the Gulf War II so far, than there were in the whole of the 1991 war.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by M_Drudge
Wow, you are really unread, aren't you? There are international inspectores monitoring the destruction of chemical weapons right now.

if you belive so ...

Why should the US get the "rest of the world" to support an action primarily designed to defend its own interests and, eventually, it's own borders. It's just a bennie that others will now be safe from a tyrant.

your 'own interests' ?? then call it what it is: imperialism

In 12 more years, the Iraqi's would, most likely, have the use of a functioning nuclear device. I suppose that would be acceptable to you?

is there any evidence at all that iraq has restarted its nuclear program? i dont think so. and dont start with iraq buying nuclear material somewhere in africa, that whole thing has been proofen to be faked.
other than that ive spend half of my live with a far worse threat.

[Judge]

Continuing to argue about the validity (legallity) of the war is pretty much irrelevant. The War has started, it is not likely (even in the remotes of circumstance) that it will be stopped before the US/UK/Aussies have achieved their stated war aims.

The UN has been pretty much sidelined by this conflict, mostly due to intransigence on both sides of the argument, it will remain sidelined until it takes a grip on the issue and puts in place a package for rebuilding Iraq once the conflict has ended.

The US/UK/Aussies have gone beyond the UN resolutions that is quite clear given the current situation.
Realistically what can be done about it?
What can the UN or the EU or anyone else do that would be an effective (for the want of a better word) punishment against the Coalition countries?

Further critical action against the US would only cause further rifts, not reduce the existing, the same can be said in regard to EU/UK relations.

Originally posted by Judge
the same can be said in regard to EU/UK relations.

one can only hope

[Texan]

Originally posted by wu_trax
would the us allow inspectors in their weapon facilities? i doubt it.
(i think i read something about treaty qabout the destruction of b and/or c-weapons, signed by the us. unfortunatly the us doesnt allow anyone to check. unfortunatly i cant access google right now, so i cant provide a link)

I'm not sure what you are talking about, but I have personally seen Russians and Lithuanians inspecting U.S. military facilities in accordance with treaty. Let me clarify in case it is not obvious. I was there when Russians inspected Camp Redleg (near Heilbronn, Germany) in accordance with the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty. I was in Luxembourg when Lithuanians inspected a Combat Equipment Group - Luxembourg site where weapons are prepositioned in accordance with the Conventional Forces Europe Treaty.

So, yes. The United States allows inspectors at sites in accordance to treaty.

Hussein, on the other hand, hides weapons and does his best to avoid following the treaties he has signed.

[Judge]

Originally posted by Insane Badger
one can only hope

you really take the meaning of the word f*ckwit to a whole new level.

Originally posted by Judge
you really take the meaning of the word f*ckwit to a whole new level.

ta

[Texan]

I once enjoyed debating subjects with you Wu-Trax. Now that you have started just making up whatever you want to believe, I enjoy it a lot less. A year ago you did research before you posted. Now you just seem to repeat whatever you hear German journalists tell you.

[wu_trax]

as i said before i dont have access to google right now (for whatever strange reasons, see tech-forum)
i only remember i read something about a treaty about the destruction of chemical weapons. in that article the us didnt allow inspection in some facilities. in the us that was, not in europe

[Anaximander]

Originally posted by M_Drudge
In 12 more years, the Iraqi's would, most likely, have the use of a functioning nuclear device. I suppose that would be acceptable to you?

Even if, why not? Others have too. What gives you the right to decide, which country is allowed to get WMD and which not?
(not seriously. Atleast one of Sadams sons is a sadistic madman. I have no need seeing him with a nuclear.)

[Texan]

Originally posted by wu_trax
snip
would the us allow inspectors in their weapon facilities? i doubt it.
snip

This is the quote I meant. I understand that you do not have access to google; however, your statement seems to indicate that the United States does not allow inspectors in weapons facilities. I have seen the inspectors. Each treaty is different. You have to look at the wording of a treaty. Some allow a country to say no at a certain time. Other treaties, like the INF Treaty, allow signatories to announce surprise inspections.

[Texan]

Originally posted by Anaximander
Even if, why not? Others have too. What gives you the right, decide, which country is allowed to get WMD and which not?
(not seriously. Atleast one of Sadams sons is a sadistic madman. I have no need seeing him with a nuclear.)

Non-Nuclear Proliferation Treaty?

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Texan
Non-Nuclear Proliferation Treaty?

did they sign it? (and what proof is there that the iraq was even close to build own nukes?)
anyway, the us doesnt seem to care about the whole uno anymore, so why should iraq give a damn about international treaties?

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Texan
This is the quote I meant. I understand that you do not have access to google; however, your statement seems to indicate that the United States does not allow inspectors in weapons facilities. I have seen the inspectors. Each treaty is different. You have to look at the wording of a treaty. Some allow a country to say no at a certain time. Other treaties, like the INF Treaty, allow signatories to announce surprise inspections.

i will try to get this dns-thingy working to provide you with a link, however what i read was about chemical or biological weapons.

[Anaximander]

Originally posted by Texan
Non-Nuclear Proliferation Treaty?

UN - charta? Human rights regarding prisoners of war (Taliban)?
All this treaties aren't worth the paper written on lately, so it seems. They become obsolete the moment somebody mutters "national security".

Please, don't take it personal or as anti - american. I'm just stuck in my "bitterness - mode" somehow......

[CrashTester]

Originally posted by Gayle29uk
Only to someone not versed in UN language.

You make it sound like the UN speaks in riddles. Only a woman could make up this bullsh*t.

'Serious Consequences' is pretty clear to me and justifies the current action since afterall, it is a 'serious consequence' to Saddams defiance.

[Anaximander]

Originally posted by CrashTester
You make it sound like the UN speaks in riddles. Only a woman could make up this bullsh*t.

'Serious Consequences' is pretty clear to me and justifies the current action since afterall, it is a 'serious consequence' to Saddams defiance.

Diplomats use their own language as every other social group. Gayle is right. Me, a man, is saying this.

Misuse or use of language.
When I read a scientific paper regarding the preparation of a new chemical and find it saying "We achieved a satisfying yield" (but no numbers), I have to translate it in: "We barely managed to get enough of this stuff to certificate its existence."

The UN is not the only ones speaking in "riddles".

Originally posted by Anaximander
Diplomats use their own language as every other social group. Gayle is right. Me, a man, is saying this.

Misuse or use of language.
When I read a scientific paper regarding the preparation of a new chemical and find it saying "We achieved a satisfying yield" (but no numbers), I have to translate it in: "We barely managed to get enough of this stuff to certificate its existence."

The UN is not the only ones speaking in "riddles".

if there is no 'official' defiition of what UN riddles mean written down somewhere then legally they have no power whatsever.To any normal person war is a 'serious consequence' and therefore it's a perfectly legal war.

Perhaps this will teach the UN to be more precise in the future.

[Cynical Oracle]

Originally posted by Insane Badger
if there is no 'official' defiition of what UN riddles mean written down somewhere then legally they have no power whatsever.To any normal person war is a 'serious consequence' and therefore it's a perfectly legal war.

Perhaps this will teach the UN to be more precise in the future.

There will be no prosecution, nor any other sanction against the allied forces and their leaders.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Insane Badger
To any normal person war is a 'serious consequence' and therefore it's a perfectly legal war.

Not that I care what the UN may or may not have said, but the law doesn't work on what normal people might read into a document.

[ParraCida]

Originally posted by Texan
I once enjoyed debating subjects with you Wu-Trax. Now that you have started just making up whatever you want to believe, I enjoy it a lot less. A year ago you did research before you posted. Now you just seem to repeat whatever you hear German journalists tell you.

IRONY! We meet again!

*puts on red cape extends arms and swooshes away*

[M_Drudge]

Originally posted by wu_trax
[b]if you belive so ...


[b]
your 'own interests' ?? then call it what it is: imperialism

is there any evidence at all that iraq has restarted its nuclear program? i dont think so. and dont start with iraq buying nuclear material somewhere in africa, that whole thing has been proofen to be faked.
other than that ive spend half of my live with a far worse threat.

Imperialism? Hmmm, had no Idea the US was expanding its borders. Please, fill us all in on this newsflash. If the US wanted new borders, they would have taken Canada and Mexico a long time ago.

As for Iraq's nuclear program, are you aware that Iraq's top nuclear program scientist escaped from there around 10 years ago? After the end of the gulf war? And, did you know, that this gentlemen has claimed to have been working on the program AFTER UN inspections commenced?

[Sub]

Which country is trying to get the U.N to allow them to govern Iraq?

[M_Drudge]

Originally posted by Sub
Which country is trying to get the U.N to allow them to govern Iraq?

Only for as long as it takes to get a new sitting govrnment. The US is not so stupid as to weather the current ****storm of world opinion, just to leave the country with a power vacuum and more problems later on.

[Anaximander]

Originally posted by M_Drudge
Imperialism? Hmmm, had no Idea the US was expanding its borders. Please, fill us all in on this newsflash. If the US wanted new borders, they would have taken Canada and Mexico a long time ago.

As for Iraq's nuclear program, are you aware that Iraq's top nuclear program scientist escaped from there around 10 years ago? After the end of the gulf war? And, did you know, that this gentlemen has claimed to have been working on the program AFTER UN inspections commenced?

Hmpf, the term "imperialism" as it is used nowadays has nothing to do with expanding your borders. Why should they? With expanding your borders you would also expand your - increasingly bleached out - bill of rights to them.
It is much easier and cheaper to install an willing satrapie. No need to bother with enviromental laws and human rights, while plundering. Gives everybody the opportunity to say: "It is not us doing these things."

[Sub]

Originally posted by M_Drudge
Only for as long as it takes to get a new sitting govrnment. The US is not so stupid as to weather the current ****storm of world opinion, just to leave the country with a power vacuum and more problems later on.

1) It's done it before.
2) Are you sure it's not an excuse to stop an Islamic government taking power?

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by M_Drudge
Imperialism? Hmmm, had no Idea the US was expanding its borders. Please, fill us all in on this newsflash. If the US wanted new borders, they would have taken Canada and Mexico a long time ago.

as already said having 'colonies' is far easier.

As for Iraq's nuclear program, are you aware that Iraq's top nuclear program scientist escaped from there around 10 years ago? After the end of the gulf war? And, did you know, that this gentlemen has claimed to have been working on the program AFTER UN inspections commenced?

and are you aware that Al Baradai has said that nothing worth mentioning is left of the iraqi nuclear program? he said that just a while ago, not ten years ago.

[Cynical Oracle]

Originally posted by Sub
2) Are you sure it's not an excuse to stop an Islamic government taking power?

Nice shooting. It's precisly that wich happend. They took power.

[Sub]

So you think the Iraqis will be given the choice of the American governing rather than it being forced on them?

Originally posted by Sandsnake
yep, here it goes. I was getting hopeful after the first day, but apparently they're running into resistance now, so they're going to "remind" the iraqi government what it feels like to be shot at.

they dont have to remind thm anything. they are being bombed since 13 years.
and its not the iraqee government who is being shot at. im sure they are safe somewhere. its the poor iraqee people who are suffering.

Originally posted by Sandsnake
no, it's rather normal. Humans must be able to assign importance based on relationships to ourselves otherwise we would be torn with grief over everything.

We care more about our own because they are exactly that. Interestingly, we've come a long way from "kill them all and let God sort em out" however. The fact that we assign importance to "oustiders" at all is a major step in the right direction.

I dont knwo about you; but i have much more grief about the people who are on the recieving end of bombs with EAT THIS TOWELHEAD written on them then the ones on the giving end!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[M_Drudge]

Originally posted by wu_trax
[b]as already said having 'colonies' is far easier.

and are you aware that Al Baradai has said that nothing worth mentioning is left of the iraqi nuclear program? he said that just a while ago, not ten years ago.

Yes, I AM aware of this. My point was, it WASN'T "nothing worth mentioning" long into the first UN inspections. I am making a point of trust here. Everyone seems to want to trust the Iraqi leadership when it is an obvious mistake.

By the way, the US has not said that the Iraqi nuclear program was alive and well. It is the chem/bio capabilities that thrive.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by M_Drudge
Yes, I AM aware of this. My point was, it WASN'T "nothing worth mentioning" long into the first UN inspections. I am making a point of trust here. Everyone seems to want to trust the Iraqi leadership when it is an obvious mistake.

Al baradai isnt part of the iraqie goverment, but a member of the weapons inspectors.

By the way, the US has not said that the Iraqi nuclear program was alive and well. It is the chem/bio capabilities that thrive.

YOU were talking about nukes, i didnt start that topic.
whats the problem with b and c weapons, if there are any left?

[Cynical Oracle]

Originally posted by Sub
So you think the Iraqis will be given the choice of the American governing rather than it being forced on them?

If you have been following this event, wich I'm severly doubting you have, you would have known that UK/USA will let the UN control Iraq.

[M_Drudge]

Yes, I know who al Baradai is. He's another competent and thorough weapons inspector.

[Judge]

Originally posted by Sub
Which country is trying to get the U.N to allow them to govern Iraq?

None actually, the proposal being put forward by the US/UK/Allies is for an interim UN administration to be set up until such times as a proper civilian authourity can be put in place.

France and Russia have already objected to this, on the basis that it legitamises the War.

So it looks likely that in the event France and Russia fck it up again with their veto's the US will have to take on the reponsibility along with the allies, thus adding more fuel to the fire of "imperialist accusations"