Have His Way

I see, well that explains a lot TL, thanks, I will look for the link. All in all after the war, Im betting things will be amazingly the same here as they are now.

[the new JR Jansen]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: I've said this before, but I'm not quite tired of pointing it out yet: The US has UN authorization. In fact, France even argued this a couple of weeks ago. Resolution 1441 authorizes force and no further resolution is needed. It is legal. Now, if by "UN Approval" you mean the approval of all member nations, then you are correct but mistaken. It is correct the US does not have the support of all member nations but the US does have "UN Approval" in the form of R1441. To draw an analogy: Bush may act with "Congressional approval" once Congress votes in favor of something, even though individual Congressmen may oppose the activity. The UN approved the use of force. The UN approved the use of force. The UN approved the use of force. The UN approved the use of force. The UN approved the use of force. Sorry... just trying to get the point across. Please folks answer the clue phone.

I just read the text again and it says 'all necesary means' and 'serious consecunces'. It, however, nowhere states, black on white, the use of force. Even if those two statements imply that, it still needs to be voted in the security council.

It seems to me that the US gouvernment thinks that war, and only war will solve this problem. But nowhere in that text the explicit use of force is OK'ed.

Originally posted by the new JR Jansen: I just read the text again and it says 'all necesary means' and 'serious consecunces'. It, however, nowhere states, black on white, the use of force. Even if those two statements imply that, it still needs to be voted in the security council. It seems to me that the US gouvernment thinks that war, and only war will solve this problem. But nowhere in that text the explicit use of force is OK'ed. Ahhh never a finer nit has been picked sir [img]smile.gif[/img] Spoken like a true politician and bureaucrat have you considered running for a UN position? (anxiously awaiting TL's response on this.)

[Night Stalker]

The wording of "serious consequences" in UN1441 is spefically vague, and the actions that are to take place that fit "serious consequences" are unresolved. Though the UN made the resolution, certain influential members had no intention of enforcing it's own decision. To find the definition, you must go all the way back to the original terms for the cease fire, UN686/7. They clearly spell out that hostilities will resume should Iraq fail to uphold their side of the bargain. The UN has failed to enforce it's own resolutions for 12 years.

The choice and blame for this whole mess lies (and always has) with Saddam.

EDIT: And to those that will toss the red herring about the UN resolutions that Israel is in violation of, just more proof that the UN is ineffective and reduced to a useless debate club.

I don't know it Timber made the reference in this thread or not, but:
Senator Amidala, I second your vote of Nonconfidence.

[ 03-10-2003, 03:38 PM: Message edited by: Night Stalker ]

Uhhh Night Stalker...I beg to differ just a teensy bit....The UN's lack or enforcement of its own resolutions can now also be said to be part of the problem.

[Night Stalker]

And who's picking nits now Ray? [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]

True this is a very good example that if one is not part of the solution, one is part of the problem. But the root of the problem is still Saddam.

Hey! Nits are tastey lil critters...here have one

[Davros]

Despite the legalistic jargon that TL showed, do you think the world and the youth of today sees the US (and the coalition of the willing) as acting in concert with the UN or as thumbing your nose at the UN and taking the law into their own hands?

It's a perception thing and an opportunity to put your feet into other people's shoes. I might well agree with the legalities put forward by TL, but do we think that is going to win popular support for the actions of today?

I'll probably get told something like "who cares", and "we are not out to win a popularity contest", but I can't help thinking that going their own way (yes, I still hold by that) on this issue has huge negative consequences for the UN and the future.

[pritchke]

We have heard all this talk of war but what is the plan for after?

Who will lead Iraq? How will the leaders be implemented? How will the population be kept from going to anarchy?

It is all nice a dandy to have big guns but no solid plan after you use them. That can not be good. I would really like to hear plans about giving democracy to the people. Currently I have reason to believe this is currently all talk and their is no solid plan to back it up.

Anyway lets get the war started and over with because I am beginning to tire of the whole thing. I really do hope the US is correct however and keep their promise of properly freeing the Iraqi people, and that their really is WMD in Iraq. There is only one thing I hate worse than a tyrant and a dictator and that is of a bold faced liar fighting on the side of right (Currently I feel lots of lies are being spewed from both sides).

[Davros]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Davros, I simply think you can drive yourself nvts - that's right, n-v-t-s, trying to please everyone. I think the majority of countries still side with the, what did you call it, "cult of the willing" on this one.

Actually I didn't call it anything TL - it was your beloved President who labelled us (the US and the countries that would back them) as the "Coalition of the willling" - I was just quoting GW this time.