Iraq agrees to destroy missiles

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ozz

No,

I'm not searching though all that crap without knowing where your going with this. If you don't believe Turkey is in violation, that's OK. Just say so.

Your post is the first i heard that Turkey is in violation.

Since you brought that up as relevant to a discussion of Iraq, it is incumbent on you to point out where Turkey is in violation, otherwise I dont have reason to believe you. Especially since you also mentioned Israel, where I am more familiar with the resolutions, and you cited a GA resolution, which is not binding, I tend not to believe you.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ozz

No,

I'm not searching though all that crap without knowing where your going with this. If you don't believe Turkey is in violation, that's OK. Just say so.

Ok, you mentioned a GA res form 1983, so i looked at the 3 UNSC resolutions from 1983. 2 dealt with extending the mandate of the peacekeeping force. The other declared that the Turkish recognized state in North Cypurs was invalid called on all states to recognize only the Republci of Cyprus. It did not single out Turkey by name to do anything in particular, nor did it indicate any consequences to member states that failed to adhere to its provisions.
It was therefore profoundly different from UNSC Res 1441.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ozz
Military bases in Iraq would control the entire Gulf oil area. It's not just the oil under Iraq.

Still not enough financial reward to justify the huge cost.

[Velociryx]

The fact remains that from the beginning, it has been Saddam's responsibility to cooperate and comply with 1441.

Had he done this, there would have been no missiles found.

But wonder of wonders....there they are!!!

So of course, caught red-handed, what else can he do, but volunteer to destroy them?

This, however, is no more a case of "cooperation" than it is when a child gets caught by mommy with his hand in the cookie jar, and she scolds him and tells him to get down this instant!

He does...is that cooperation????

Hardly.

But of course, the peaceniks now USE this latest episode to say "ohhhh Look! Saddam is such a nice man! He's TRYING to cooperate, but the mean ol' USA won't give him time?!"

Got several newsflashes for you:
1) We've been playing this game for too long already. It's getting old.

2) Saddam is NOT going to miraculously turn over any new leaves and suddenly become the poster child for the Care Bears.

3) Saddam HAS weapons that violate 1441. Blix found them.

4) 1441 says that if Saddam doesn't comply with it, serious consequences will result.

5) Blix has found PROOF....physical proof in the form of missiles that should have been destroyed, but weren't, that Iraq is not complying (as if all the other evidence weren't enough).

Time to stop d*cking around.

-=Vel=-

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Velociryx
3) Saddam HAS weapons that violate 1441. Blix found them.

Do we have to take anybody´s word on this, or is there *proof* that the missiles actually *do* violate anything?

Their range is in dispute, remember?

[Edan]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune


Do we have to take anybody´s word on this, or is there *proof* that the missiles actually *do* violate anything?

Well, I know I have to take the inspectors words, since I'm not a rocket scientist and I haven't seen the missiles myself.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune


Do we have to take anybody´s word on this, or is there *proof* that the missiles actually *do* violate anything?

Their range is in dispute, remember?

Blix said they are in violation. Now i dont suppose we have to take Blix's word on everything - i can think of many reasons not to. But dont expect your French pals to suggest that we stop taking Blix's word

[Velociryx]

What'll it take, Comrade? You gonna wait till CNN can get a camera crew in and show live, pay-per-view coverage of the latest round of "Gas-the-Kurds" before you believe?

Nahh, that's right, you'd rather see him lob a few dozen missiles at US ships and maybe damage or sink a few.

And, in the same breath, you'd also rather that the US continue to foot the bill for containment till he (Saddam) dies of old age. No money out of YOUR pocket, after all....right?



Yeah...we know how it is.

-=Vel=-

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Nahh, that's right, you'd rather see him lob a few dozen missiles at US ships and maybe damage or sink a few.

If you attack him: Sure.

I support the right of self-defence, in agreement with International Law and the UN Charter.

[Velociryx]

Why bring the UN into it? You clearly don't believe they should enforce their own resolution against Iraq....

-=Vel=-

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Why bring the UN into it? You clearly don't believe they should enforce their own resolution against Iraq....

-=Vel=-

The UN SC violated the Charter by going beyond its authority. 1441 is illegal, and therefore void.

[Velociryx]

How's this? And what groups are pushing this angle at present?

-=Vel=-

[Spiffor]

Vel :
I think you're the only one to care about the UN in this whole issue.
As far as I've seen, both parties use the UN when they feel it's adapted. I am impressed by the amount of UN-haters who say "we can't let the UN being disrespected by Iraq" to justify an agression. The very same will say "UN is just a bunch of Frenchized sissies" should it refuse the war, and will support a unilateral attack from the US the same.

And I'm sure you'll see many pro-peace people harshly criticizing the UN if it supports war. I already foresee all the critics about backstage negociations, which decide everything in the interests of the powerful, and not in the interests of world peace

Let's face it, for an outstanding majority of people here, the UN is just a cheap way to legitimize his motives and delegitimze the others' motives.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Velociryx
How's this? And what groups are pushing this angle at present?

-=Vel=-

this was brought up on another thread, where it was fairly definitively shown that the UNSC did not exceed its rights under the charter by passing UNSC 1441. No state that I know of has suggested that it did, Im not sure if this is a meme going around, or if its just the logical response once its proved that the US position is the logical result of UNSC 1441. Remember a forum like this is different from the UNSC - we actually poke holes in each others arguments. In the UNSC France can simply ignore the contradictions between its position and 1441, therefore theres no need to question the legitimacy of 1441.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Velociryx
How's this? And what groups are pushing this angle at present?

Have you ever read the Charter? It´s about *avoiding war*, not about constructing casus belli for attackers.

I suppose Libertarians would agree with me on this one, also some on the Left and, of course, Iraq itself. But it doesn´t even matter who agrees: The Law is the Law.