Knife wrote: 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
I think this show very nicely, that it authorized Member States to use all necessary means, you can argue what "is" is but lets be honest. All necessary means, means that military action is authorized.
ONly deals with the expulsion of Iraq from Kuwait in 1990.
Here are resolutions
660 and
678.
Both are limited mandates to deal with the matter at hand. Niether allow the invasion of Iraq 10 years later.
Knife wrote: Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,
This is showing that the cease fire (not shooting them) is based on if they accept and comly to the resolutions by the UN.
Except this document deals only with pushing Iraq out of Kuwait and near the beginning has the line 'Affirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Kuwait and Iraq". It was to agree the Ceasfire of activities started due to 660, and therefore has no relevance here.
knife wrote:1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);
Declares that Iraq is in material breach of resolutions, which according to the cease fire agreement, voids it.
A ceasefire to pushing Iraq out of Kuwait. Is Iraq in Kuwait now? Has Iraq been in Kuwait at all after 1991? Is Iraq threatening to invade Kuwait or it's Arab nieghbours? If not then all previous resolutions pertaining to that matter are irrelevant.
knife wrote: 4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;
Says if they fuck up more, they are in further breach of this and earlier resolutions, effectively making the cease fire void.
13. 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;
Says that they have been warned of serious consequences, by its context I assume it means prior resolutions, thus 1441 may not lay down serious consequences but prior resolutions including the cease fire agreement do that nicely and 1441 reafirms it.
Except to Invade Iraq you need a Resolution of the Council to that effect and none of the Prior Resolutions deal with invading Iraq. The 'Any means neccesary' part was pertaining to removing Iraq from Kuwait, something that was done. 660 and subsequent resolutions to deal with it and named in 1441 were all acheived once Iraq was out of Kuwait. Also since 1441 was signed, Iraq allowed unhindered access to all UNMOVIC teams as confirmed by the head of UNMOVIC Hans Blix and by the head of the IAEA Mohammed ElBaradi. Therefore 1441 was complied with therefore there is no Lawful reason for the invasion.
I'll say right now that I think it's right to remove Saddam and other proven dictators from power. However the actions of the US and UK governments in this matter have been Dubious to put it mildly. As I said in another threa, they simply chose the wrong thing to cite as a reason for war. They chose WMD and then had to backpedal like mad when Iraq let in the Inspectors and they found NOTHING! Right now Shrub appears to be pretending that 1441 has relevance but it hasn't and he is acting against International Law.
Here's a fun fact for everyone reading this.The last time a UN member broke International Law and invaded another UN member was in 1990 when Iraq invaded Kuwait...
By rights, the Next resolution in the UN should be one to remove (by force if neccesary) the invaders from Iraq. That should be interesting.
It'll never happen though as the scale of
that war would be Worldwide and no one wants that. I bet China's watching this and rubbing it's hands "well if no one wants to stop the US because it would be a World War, what's to stop us taking Taiwan?" Shrub is playing a dangerous game.
), which would presumably be Germany in his case. In Germany, the prevailing social attitudes are vastly different than they are in the US. Having recently spoken to a German scientist who was vacationing in Canada about his feelings and his impressions of others in his country, it appears to me that the level of decidedly anti-US sentiment in Germany is very high.
*places head and hands and slowly shakes* It is amazing to me, that if a law (resolution) is made (try 17) and it is enforced, that it is then illegal due to the fact that some of the people who made the law (again resolution) didn't really mean it (France, Germany, ect..).
