The regime the anti-war crowd has been defending

[Enforcer Talen]

oh god, not another one. iraqi oil will lower oil prices, and bush's oil company friends will *lose* money.

[Vympel]

oh god, not another one. iraqi oil will lower oil prices, and bush's oil company friends will *lose* money.

If that's the case, explain why oil companies have expressed interest in developing Iraq's oil reserves once the country is 'stable'.

[Warspite]

If that's the case, explain why oil companies have expressed interest in developing Iraq's oil reserves once the country is 'stable'.

Are you crazy? That's the biggest non-nationalized market! It will be a friggin' gold-mine for the next decades, since the Iraqis will need these oil companies to get back into production, unlike being only a few (or only one, like the French) chosen by whose ass they kiss better.
The prices will lower mainly due to the stabilization of the region.

[Vympel]

If that's the case, explain why oil companies have expressed interest in developing Iraq's oil reserves once the country is 'stable'.

Are you crazy? That's the biggest non-nationalized market! It will be a friggin' gold-mine for the next decades, since the Iraqis will need these oil companies to get back into production, unlike being only a few (or only one, like the French) chosen by whose ass they kiss better.
The prices will lower mainly due to the stabilization of the region.

So basically we agree? If oil companies stand to lose big money, they won't be too interested in developing the oil-reserves, right?

Besides, the 'oil friend' argument is a strawman. Cheaper oil is good for the US economy.

Still, it'll be quite awhile until Iraq's oil industry is churning out the barrels- a lot of repair is needed.

[Warspite]

So basically we agree? If oil companies stand to lose big money, they won't be too interested in developing the oil-reserves, right?

Besides, the 'oil friend' argument is a strawman. Cheaper oil is good for the US economy.

Still, it'll be quite awhile until Iraq's oil industry is churning out the barrels- a lot of repair is needed.

Yeah, we agree...

Not only the repair, but also the human resources, there's enough people to work the wells, but (probably) not qualified enough to manage them, since these managers are the ones chosen by the regime, and consequently have (perhaps) been laying low, or fled to another oil-rich country.

[Master of Ossus]

Bullshit. By your standards, the French bribed the Americans not to get involved in Iraq. Bribery requires funds or services to be given specifically to officials. This is not a bribe because the funds were offered to the Turks and not to any specific Turk.

Stop the dancing. Turkey says no, US waves money in her face, and Turkey warms up to the idea. Bribe. Concession accepted.

Bullshit. That's not a bribe. Your version of events is wrong, anyway. The offer from the United States to Turkey was always on the table. The Turks at first refused and attempted to negotiate a higher sum. Then they refused, and the Americans went away from Turkey, and the Turks flip-flopped and allowed the Americans to use their airspace and bases at the eleventh hour, and some cynics would say past that.

By your standards, I am bribing a store to sell me a newspaper when I give them my $.50 every day. It's an exchange, but certainly not a bribe. Once again you are caught in a web of deceit.

Moreover, you ignore the other nations including the UK, Spain, the Netherlands, Denmark, Australia, Kuwait, and numerous others that offered their support for the war without any insentive but their consciences.

Which has nothing to do with whether or not Turkey was bribed, so this is a red herring. Concession accepted.

Yours was the original red-herring. I chose to answer it, and then moved the thread back on to topic with my statement. Concession accepted.

My post attacked the 'coalition of the willing' argument, was fully on topic, and was no red herring of any sort.

Yes it was. You attack the Coalition of the Willing, then IGNORE the Coalition of the Willing! Look, you just REFUSED to talk about other countries that were willing to join the Coalition, and did so! That IS a red herring.

Actually, no. By your standards, the United States should have supported the bombing of the Iraqi nuclear facility. My theory explains the American action clearly. Your model confesses it cannot explain that incident. Concession accepted.

Bullfuckingshit. Your model exists only to stretch concepts for your benefit. Way to be dishonest.

Oooooh. What an insult. Show the dishonesty, dumbass.

Besides which, by your standards, Germany is a grossly dishonest country. After all, they have been privately supporting the war while publically lying and claiming they don't support it. As I also pointed out, Saddam Hussein was elected unanimously by his people just a short time ago. Are you claiming that:

1. They are all dishonest?
2. They changed their minds in two weeks, and decided that from unanimously electing Saddam he turned out to be a poor leader who needed to be recalled?
3. Some combination thereof?

After all, they should have had no problems in openly voicing their opinions on the war, but they weren't doing that until two weeks after the shooting began! What's up with that?

[Master of Ossus]

1441 does, in no way, allow one nation to arbitrarily invade another.

Fine, then we are resuming the military action that a U.N. brokered peace treaty ended in 1991 - a peace Saddam has been violating.

And that 1991 war had the goal of ejecting Iraq from Kuwait, not invading Iraq for the purpose of "regime change". Sorry, but there is simply no way to make this war legal. Some may argue that the sanction of international law is unnecessary and that it's justified on moral grounds if not legal ones, but as long as people are going to claim that the war is sanctioned by UN resolutions, others will point out that this is not true.

Mike, the thing about 1441 is, whatever you think about the intention of the document, its wording was a brilliant move for the United States, to allow them the option of removing Saddam Hussein by themselves. The preamble allowed individual nations to enforce it. It found Iraq in material breach of its agreements with the United Nations. It declared Iraq was in the wrong, and promised 'serious consequences' for their behavior. Now, you can claim that that isn't legal justification, but usually claims like "we didn't realize how serious things were," or "We didn't understand the repercussions of the document we had signed," don't hold up very well in court.

[Knife]

Subsequent RELEVANT is the actual phrase, which is no small distinction because it only allows the use of subsequent resolutions which actually related directly to the demands made in 660 (for example, 678 related directly to the demands of 660). Those stipulating additional demands are not relevant to the enforcement of 660.

Then why the hell add that phrase to the resolution if it does not relate to or is considered a subsequent and/or relevant document. If the initial document said that we could whip Iraq's ass and all of the resolutions that followed say that 'member nations can enforce this and subsequent relevant resolutions', does this not imply that we can go back in under the terms of all of the resolutions that are connected by the Iraqi situation?

You are excising an individual word out of its sentence in order to generate the appearance of a loophole. Very bad form, Knife.

Ouch, that actually hurt. No, I am pointing out that a loophole was put into the launguge of the resolution. I wasn't pulling an individual word out of the text, rather pointing out a word that is conviniently forgotten when disscussing this particular issue.

He presents no offensive threat. By crushing him so easily, the US has inadvertently proved that.

In an age where on missile can produce destruction on a biblical scale, I am less concerned with his tanks and infantry than other possible programes that could be hidden through out his country. These weapons are the clear and preasent danger, not conventional forces.

[Perinquus]

>Don't you think it says much about what really lies behind this war the fact some of the most important people on the Bush administration have (or had) relations with important oil corporations and the lots of oil Iraq has?.This war has been done for nothing more than the Iraq's OIL.[/b]

Doesn't it EVER occur to you, who make this tired old argument, that the cost of waging this war would take years to recoup even if we took full control of the Iraqi oil fields and handed them over to Exxon or Texaco? And this is something that for political reasons, we cannot do, even if we wanted to? Instead we have already made it clear that the oil wells will be turned over to the postwar Iraqi government, which means it would be decades, if ever, before we made back our money from that source.

I'm afraid there's just a bit more to this than "blood for oil". Try again.

[TheDarkling]

I think the more important issue is getting that oil under a friendly liberal middle eastern country not trying to use it to boost the US economy or some such (although I would point out that the US government is shelling out for the war not oil companies who do stand to benefit).

I believe the long term aim is to get the US in a position where it can take a much more hard line stance against Saudi Arabia in an effort to sort out the terrorism problem, at the moment the Saudi's have far to much influence over the US and its allies/trading partners but an oil producing loyal Iraq will offset this strangle hold somewhat.

[Perinquus]

Another purpose of the war was to serve notice to other nations that United States is serious about dismantling regimes that support terrorism. that when Geo. W. Bush said, after September 11th, 2001 that we were going to target not only terrorists, but the nations that supported them, he wasn't kidding. The message seems to be getting through at least to some in the Middle East, in the wake of the U.S. sack of Baghdad.

Here's an excerpt from an article in yesterday's Washnington Post:

Ramy Khoury, editor of the Daily Star in Beirut, Lebanon writes that "a realistic reading of the policy must conclude that the sacking of Baghdad is designed to send signals to all other Middle Eastern and Asian regimes that the U.S. finds annoying, threatening, distasteful, worrisome, or even just a little strange.

Khoury explicated what he said are "the new rules of the game now being explained to the world through the televised display of Mesopotamian show-and-tell."

"If Washington merely suspects that terrorists may one day emerge from your land, or that you might in future threaten your neighbors, you have only two options: You change course and shape up, or you are finished as a governing regime. If you behave as Baghdad behaved, defying the new rules of the game, you suffer the same fate as Baghdad is suffering."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... 3Apr9.html

Though I don't want to see the U.S. become drunk with its power, and throw its weight around too much, I for one think this is a good message for some of the rogue nations in the world to hear.

[Queeb Salaron]

oh god, not another one. iraqi oil will lower oil prices, and bush's oil company friends will *lose* money.

I thought I read an article somewhere that said Bush gave his "friends" first dibs on the oil rigs the military took over in Iraq. I could be wrong, though.

[Darth Wong]

Mike, the thing about 1441 is, whatever you think about the intention of the document, its wording was a brilliant move for the United States, to allow them the option of removing Saddam Hussein by themselves. The preamble allowed individual nations to enforce it.

No, it only allowed individual nations to enforce Resolution 660 and all directly associated resolutions.

It found Iraq in material breach of its agreements with the United Nations. It declared Iraq was in the wrong, and promised 'serious consequences' for their behavior. Now, you can claim that that isn't legal justification, but usually claims like "we didn't realize how serious things were," or "We didn't understand the repercussions of the document we had signed," don't hold up very well in court.

Nor do attempts to claim that the authority to enforce resolution A also gives you the authority to enforce resolution B.

[Oberleutnant]

Most of the EU supported the war. Concession accepted.

No, a clear majority of EU member states did not support the war. "Only" Denmark, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and UK are part of the coalition. That's six countries out of fifteen.

[Master of Ossus]

Most of the EU supported the war. Concession accepted.

No, a clear majority of EU member states did not support the war. "Only" Denmark, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and UK are part of the coalition. That's six countries out of fifteen.

The EU vote had 11 out of fifteen members supporting the war, although some of those did not actually want to join the Coalition. That does not mean that they didn't support Coalition action, it just meant that they weren't willing to send troops or other equipment to the region to help out.

[Master of Ossus]

No, it only allowed individual nations to enforce Resolution 660 and all directly associated resolutions.

Right. It found Iraq in "material breach" of that resolution, among others, and allowed individual member nations to enforce those rules. Obviously, Coalition movements were legal. You can bicker over whether or not this was a moral method of gaining legal justification, but the justification exists within 1441.

It found Iraq in material breach of its agreements with the United Nations. It declared Iraq was in the wrong, and promised 'serious consequences' for their behavior. Now, you can claim that that isn't legal justification, but usually claims like "we didn't realize how serious things were," or "We didn't understand the repercussions of the document we had signed," don't hold up very well in court.

Nor do attempts to claim that the authority to enforce resolution A also gives you the authority to enforce resolution B.

The resolution found that Iraq had violated the agreements it had made with the UN in Resolution 660, and violated additional rules. The Coalition was enforcing those rules. Why is this not a legal justification for the action?

[Graeme Dice]

oh god, not another one. iraqi oil will lower oil prices, and bush's oil company friends will *lose* money.

Yet, because the U.S. is a net importer of oil, lower oil prices can only help them in the long run.

[Patrick Degan]

No, it only allowed individual nations to enforce Resolution 660 and all directly associated resolutions.

Right. It found Iraq in "material breach" of that resolution, among others, and allowed individual member nations to enforce those rules. Obviously, Coalition movements were legal. You can bicker over whether or not this was a moral method of gaining legal justification, but the justification exists within 1441.

Wrong.

Full text: UN security council resolution 1441 on Iraq

Friday December 20, 2002

The Security Council,

Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,

Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,

Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

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,

Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council's repeated demandsthat Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA; and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,

Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,

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,

Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance,

Recalling that the effective operation of UNMOVIC, as the successor organization to the Special Commission, and the IAEA, is essential for the implementation of resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions,

Noting the letter dated 16 September 2002 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iraq addressed to the Secretary-General is a necessary first step toward rectifying Iraq's continued failure tocomply with relevant Council resolutions,

Noting further the letter dated 8 October 2002 from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq laying out the practical arrangements, as a follow-up to their meeting in Vienna, that are prerequisites for the resumption of inspections in Iraq by UNMOVIC and the IAEA, and expressing the gravest concern at the continued failure by the Government of Iraq to provide confirmation of the arrangements as laid out in that letter,

Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,

Commending the Secretary General and members of the League of Arab States and its Secretary General for their efforts in this regard,

Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

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);

2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclearprogrammes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

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 paragraph 11 and 12 below;

5. Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVIC's or the IAEA's choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi government; and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following adoption of this resolution and to update the Council 60 days thereafter;

6. Endorses the 8 October 2002 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq, which is annexed hereto, and decides that the contents of the letter shall be binding upon Iraq;

7. Decides further that, in view of the prolonged interruption by Iraq of the presence of UNMOVIC and the IAEA and in order for them to accomplish the tasks set forth in this resolution and all previous relevant resolutions and notwithstanding prior understandings, the Council hereby establishes the following revised or additional authorities, which shall be binding upon Iraq , to facilitate their work in Iraq:

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall determine the composition of their inspection teams and ensure that these teams are composed of the most qualified and experienced experts available;

-- All UNMOVIC and IAEA personnel shall enjoy the privileges and immunities, corresponding to those of experts on mission, provided in the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the IAEA;

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have unrestricted rights of entry into and out of Iraq, the right to free, unrestricted, and immediate movement to and from inspection sites, and the right to inspect any sites and buildings, including immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to Presidential Sites equal to that at other sites, notwithstanding the provisions of resolution 1154 (1998);

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to be provided by Iraq the names of all personnel currently and formerly associated with Iraq's chemical, biological, nuclear, and ballistic missile programmes and the associated research, development, and production facilities;

-- Security of UNMOVIC and IAEA facilities shall be ensured by sufficient UN security guards;

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to declare, for the purposes of freezing a site to be inspected, exclusion zones, including surrounding areas and transit corridors, in which Iraq will suspend ground and aerial movement so that nothing is changed in or taken out of a site being inspected;

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the free and unrestricted use and landing of fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, including manned and unmanned reconnaissance vehicles;

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right at their sole discretion verifiably to remove, destroy, or render harmless all prohibited weapons, subsystems, components, records, materials, and other related items, and the right to impound or close any facilities or equipment for the production thereof; and

-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the right to free import anduse of equipment or materials for inspections and to seize and export any equipment, materials, or documents taken during inspections, without search of UNMOVIC or IAEA personnel or official or personal baggage;

8. Decides further that Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts directed against any representative or personnel of the United Nations or the IAEA or of any Member State taking action to uphold any Council resolution;

9. Requests the Secretary General immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of that notification its intention to comply fully with this resolution; and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;

11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;

12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

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;

14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

The resolution found that Iraq had violated the agreements it had made with the UN in Resolution 660, and violated additional rules. The Coalition was enforcing those rules. Why is this not a legal justification for the action?

Because no matter how much you might read the text of Resolution 1441 up, down, sideways, or in a mirror, there is no clause, paragraph, or quote anywhere in the body of that text which says "authourisation for war".

[Master of Ossus]

It doesn't need to say "authorization for war." That's the point. It allows for "serious consequences" to follow, and everyone drafting and voting on the resolution understood implicitly that those included the use of force.

Did you miss this paragraph?

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,

You can't even argue intent, on this issue. The United States was the primary writer of the resolution, and they were already thinking far enough ahead as to create a resolution that gave them the option of going to war with Iraq if they decided later to do so. That other nations refused to pick up on this is their own problem.

[Darth Wong]

Did you miss this paragraph?

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,

You can't even argue intent, on this issue. The United States was the primary writer of the resolution, and they were already thinking far enough ahead as to create a resolution that gave them the option of going to war with Iraq if they decided later to do so. That other nations refused to pick up on this is their own problem.

And that paragraph merely says they are allowed to use force to enforce Resolution 660 and all associated resolutions. Resolution 660 only requires Iraq to withdraw its forces to the positions they occupied before invading Kuwait. There is nothing in the resolution about regime change, nothing about total disarmament, nothing about elimination of entire classes of weapons, etc. Subsequent resolutions concerning Iraq and WMD are not relevant to its statements; their only connection to resolution 660 is the fact that they also involve Iraq.

[Master of Ossus]

Did you miss this paragraph?

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,

You can't even argue intent, on this issue. The United States was the primary writer of the resolution, and they were already thinking far enough ahead as to create a resolution that gave them the option of going to war with Iraq if they decided later to do so. That other nations refused to pick up on this is their own problem.

And that paragraph merely says they are allowed to use force to enforce Resolution 660 and all associated resolutions. Resolution 660 only requires Iraq to withdraw its forces to the positions they occupied before invading Kuwait. There is nothing in the resolution about regime change, nothing about total disarmament, nothing about elimination of entire classes of weapons, etc. Subsequent resolutions concerning Iraq and WMD are not relevant to its statements; their only connection to resolution 660 is the fact that they also involve Iraq.

But, Mike, 1441 ALSO clearly states that those other resolutions ARE considered "associated resolutions," by listing them as being "relevant resolutions," and naming many of them specifically.

Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,

[Darth Wong]

But, Mike, 1441 ALSO clearly states that those other resolutions ARE considered "associated resolutions," by listing them as being "relevant resolutions," and naming many of them specifically.

Shell game. Resolution 1441 recalls that resolution 678 authorized member states to enforce resolution 660 and all relevant resolutions. Resolution 678 did NOT authorize member states to enforce any and all resolutions which might be drafted in the future. The fact that resolution 1441 also recalls the existence of other resolutions does not make them relevant in the paragraph recalling resolution 678.

Or, to put it another way: paragraph A says that we remember resolution 678 and its contents. Paragraph B says that we also remember various other resolutions. You are mixing and matching parts of paragraph A and paragraph B to form your conclusion that recalling resolution 678 also magically extends its scope to cover a whole slew of other resolutions merely by virtue of being mentioned in a different paragraph.

[Master of Ossus]

Shell game. Resolution 1441 recalls that resolution 678 authorized member states to enforce resolution 660 and all relevant resolutions. Resolution 678 did NOT authorize member states to enforce any and all resolutions which might be drafted in the future. The fact that resolution 1441 also recalls the existence of other resolutions does not make them relevant in the paragraph recalling resolution 678.

Or, to put it another way: paragraph A says that we remember resolution 678 and its contents. Paragraph B says that we also remember various other resolutions. You are mixing and matching parts of paragraph A and paragraph B to form your conclusion that recalling resolution 678 also magically extends its scope to cover a whole slew of other resolutions merely by virtue of being mentioned in a different paragraph.

Resolution 1441 changes that, to include all subsequent resolutions, which it listed within the paragraph that I showed above. Moreover, through your interpretation of the document, they are recalling that action clause meaninglessly, because nothing is going to be coming of it as you believe that the goals of that resolution were already fulfilled.

Edit: I should also point out that it recalled that the UN had also allowed its members to "restore international peace and security in the area." Its reference here was clearly an effort to justify actions that had taken place AFTER the Gulf War ended, and so your argument as to the time frame of resolution 678 being before the war and therefore excluding its ability to legally justify further military action does not pan out.

[Darth Wong]

Resolution 1441 changes that, to include all subsequent resolutions, which it listed within the paragraph that I showed above.

No it doesn't.

The Security Council,

Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,

Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,

Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

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,

The Security Council first recalls all of the previous resolutions relevant to this present resolution. It then recalls resolution 678, which authorized member states to enforce resolution 660 and relevant subsequent resolutions (this is true; resolution 678 did authorize enforcement of 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions which existed at the time).

At no point does it alter or extend resolution 678; it merely recalls its contents. Moreover, the list of "relevant resolutions" does NOT follow the recall of resolution 678; in fact, it is listed well BEFORE the paragraph in question and is obviously not directly related to its contents.

Moreover, through your interpretation of the document, they are recalling that action clause meaninglessly, because nothing is going to be coming of it as you believe that the goals of that resolution were already fulfilled.

Yes, it is meaningless and unnecessary. So what? I agree with you that the underhanded ulterior motive of the paragraph in question is obvious. However, the fact that it does not satisfy the underhanded intent is also obvious.

[Master of Ossus]

Hmmm... Perhaps you are correct, although I think that the intent of the document is clearly an effort to justify military actions taken after the Gulf War had already ended, including the most recent war.

I don't know enough about United Nations Resolutions to tell for sure, but I actually think that the little pre-operative statements that they make have some legal punch to them, though I guess that the document did not clearly alter Resolution 678.