America... the evil usurper of UN power (?)

Post-9/11 Era Forum

OK, lot's of issues being spun in the media, but I will try to focus on one here:

Many around the world are claiming that the evil US/UK "coalition of the willing" is about to ignore the UN and unilaterally invade a sovereign country, etc., etc.

Hmmmm. Someone please correct me because I must be missing something here. As far as I recall, the UN as an entity passed a resolution (one of many) referred to as 1441. This unanimously approved resolution ordered Saddam to immediately and unconditionally disclose all WMD and other prohobited weapons systems/programs in a report due no later than 30 days after the passing of 1441. This gave Saddam ONE LAST CHANCE to comply or face the consequences of being forcibly disarmed. After the report, inspection teams were supposed to go in and and confirm compliance.

After several official reports, no one seems to disagree with the fact that Saddam is not in complete compliance with 1441. Is someone arguing that Saddam is in compliance? Help me people.

So now the US/UK are moving towards implementing 1441 "consequences." While a number of other countries go to work at the UN, and sit in UN chairs, and hold important positions at the UN, their opinions do not represent the "UN" unless they are formally acknowledged. They are just debating ideas. Some good, some bad. Good for them. If the French would like to propose a protocol/resolution stating that Saddam is in compliance, and they can get that passed, thats one thing. But if the French, Germans, Russians, others, are unwilling to fulfill their obligations and support the implementation of 1441, then they are the ones going against the UN. Perhaps I am wrong. Someone please correct me.

Is it really strange that Saddam doesn't take the UN seriously if the Security Council can't take itself seriously?

As a final note, the French et al, by supporting the position that US/UK action would be illegitimate, or by not proactively supporting the US/UK position that 1441 must be implemented, are in fact creating legitimacy and support for Saddam worldwide. This raises the moral of internal/external supporters and will lead to the deaths of more US/UK/Iraqi people.

Again, someone please help me here! Is Saddam in compliance and I just midded this bit of news?

Well, most seem to be arguing that the "severe consequences" mentioned in 1441 don't necessarily equate to "military invasion". Further, many people regard this a "holy war" since Bush stupidly referred to the war on terror as a "crusade" which, of course, conjures up a number of unpleasant images. And so opponents add "military invasion" plus "holy war" together and the result is "muslim genocide". It's all being twisted and contorted into something it's not.

YES, admittedly, 1441 does not outline specific consequences, and for that some agreement should be reached if there is to be any better than bilateral support for this from the UN. But since the UN seems to have their thumbs up their butts and the only "severe consequences" they can seem to come up with being "give Iraq a little more time to comply", we probably need to take matters into our own hands to make up for their inaction. Their inaction is, of course, also partly due to "their" various economic stakes in the matter as well.

Hi,

OK. So if we can all agree that Saddam is in violation of 1441, then the debate should turn to consequences. I think Powell made it clear prior to the 1441 vote that serious consequences meant that Saddam would be disarmed by force if he was found to be in breach.

Have the French provided any ideas on how they interpret "serious consequences"? Hmmm. Should we impose sanctions? Should we cut off their ability to import oil? No that wouldn't work. Um, I'm plum out of ideas.

That's been my argument as well: I don't see any other way to interpret it other than as representing armed enforcement of compliance -> military action.

Hmmmm. In fact, what other interpretation could there be for "serious consequences" following a material breach of Saddam's "last chance"?

If this was his last chance, and war is the last resort, then all men are socrates? What am I missing?

Does he get more chances after his last chance?

Bush and Blair and their aides are still saying war can be avoided if Saddam speeds up his declaration of weapons, mainly the chem/biolog. ones ( I don't believe Bush, I think he'll go into war no matter what)
Alot of people seem to have problems with the war because Saddam has been passing up loads of info on his weapons and the UN's Hans Blix is making progress all the time. Also even more progress is being made now with lots of troops stationed outside his country.

Why not continue while progress is being made?

so what he is destroying weapons, as he destroys them he builds them right back, unless he gives up all of his weapons and tells us where they are at we will and should go to war

Yeah, Bush himself acknowledged in a televised press conference that while some missles were being destroyed, additional ones were being manufactured at an accellerated rate and that such a "token effort" was not acceptable. Bush says UNCONDITIONAL, IMMEDIATE, FULL COMPLIANCE in order to avoid war. Speeding up the manipulation of smoke & mirrors is not sufficient.