Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Plan B

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    BORIS! I'm not talking about WMD. Pay attention. You're a smart and attentive man. I know you can follow this.
    After the Gulf War, when Bush, Sr. screwed up and followed the U.N's wishes, we signed a Cease Fire.
    By gassing people and firing on our aircraft that were patrolling the No Fly Zone (as mandated by the Cease Fire with the U.N.), Hussin broke the Cease Fire.
    Enter 1441. Go read. There are many here that won't go read. Again, you're better than that. Read 1441.
    Last edited by SlowwHand; October 4, 2008, 00:46.
    Life is not measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.
    "Hating America is something best left to Mobius. He is an expert Yank hater.
    He also hates Texans and Australians, he does diversify." ~ Braindead

    Comment


    • #32
      Does it have pictures?
      Long time member @ Apolyton
      Civilization player since the dawn of time

      Comment


      • #33
        Well, that's a good point. Not that I've seen. It's an idea worth consideration.
        Life is not measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.
        "Hating America is something best left to Mobius. He is an expert Yank hater.
        He also hates Texans and Australians, he does diversify." ~ Braindead

        Comment


        • #34
          Sloww... we've all been over this before.

          1) Iraq didn't have WMD. Everyone ackowledges that now. He'd disarmed after Gulf War 1. The gassing you reference occured in Halabja 1988. So that rationale is bogus.

          2) The U.S. did not have authority to enforce 1441 unilaterally. Kofi Annan stated this outright. The No-Fly zones were not sanctioned by the U.N., they were put in place by the U.S. and U.K., and they were a direct violation of Iraq's sovereign air space. Annan also acknowledged this, and that Iraq had the right to fire at planes violating its airspace. Keep in mind those planes were attacking Iraqi radar sites and killing Iraqi soldiers. The U.N. never authorized the action that the U.S. coalition took.
          Tutto nel mondo è burla

          Comment


          • #35
            Boris, the U.N. endorsed it. The same people that advocated a Cease Fire in the first place.
            Life is not measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.
            "Hating America is something best left to Mobius. He is an expert Yank hater.
            He also hates Texans and Australians, he does diversify." ~ Braindead

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by SlowwHand
              Boris, the U.N. endorsed it. The same people that advocated a Cease Fire in the first place.
              Bzzzt again.

              The Iraqi no-fly zones are two separate no-fly zones (NFZs), and were proclaimed by the United States, United Kingdom and France after the Gulf War of 1991 to protect humanitarian operations in northern Iraq and Shiite Muslims in the south. Iraqi aircraft were forbidden from flying inside the zones. The policy was enforced by US, UK and French aircraft patrols until France withdrew in 1998. While the enforcing powers had cited United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 as authorising the operations, the resolution contains no explicit authorization. The Secretary-General of the UN at the time the resolution was passed, Boutros Boutros-Ghali called the no-fly zones "illegal" in a later interview with John Pilger[1][2].


              UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has made clear that the international body does not view "no-fly" zone confrontations as a violation of the resolution. "Let me say that I don't think the Council will say that this is in contravention of the resolution that was recently passed," Annan told reporters Tuesday during a visit to Kosovo.


              Honestly, the "violating 1441" bull**** was discredited a long, long time ago.
              Tutto nel mondo è burla

              Comment


              • #37
                This original premise of this thread ... "Plan A" ... has utterly collapsed, and it seems that "Plan B" is to argue about Iraq.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Long time member @ Apolyton
                  Civilization player since the dawn of time

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Aeson
                    This original premise of this thread ... "Plan A" ... has utterly collapsed, and it seems that "Plan B" is to argue about Iraq.


                    And my original statement was that promoting Democracy was ONE of the rationales for the Iraq War, not the only one. And that was just to show that communism doesn't have a monopoly on violently spreading itself. The neocons openly champion the forcible exporting of democracy, it's not a secret.
                    Tutto nel mondo è burla

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Damn. They're on to us. We'll have to switch to eating babies or something.
                      Long time member @ Apolyton
                      Civilization player since the dawn of time

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        That's already taken by the monarchists.
                        Tutto nel mondo è burla

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Boris could be Iraq. I ask him to read 1441. A simple Google would yield the request, nut no. Pictures are needed.



                          Life is not measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.
                          "Hating America is something best left to Mobius. He is an expert Yank hater.
                          He also hates Texans and Australians, he does diversify." ~ Braindead

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            From your favorite source, Wiki.
                            The point is, with or without WMD, it was warranted. My own belief is that they found their way to Syria, whom I would bomb the dog**** out of, over general principle.

                            Resolution 1441 specifically stated:
                            That Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq's breaches related not only to Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs), but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait for the widespread looting conducted by its troops in 1991.
                            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".

                            Passage of resolution

                            George W. Bush addressed the General Assembly on September 12, 2002 to outline the complaints of the United States against the Iraqi government.

                            On 12 September 2002, President Bush spoke before the General Assembly of the United Nations and outlined a catalogue of complaints against the Iraqi government.[1] These included:
                            "In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq support terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments....And al-Qaida terrorists escaped from Afghanistan are known to be in Iraq."
                            U.N. Commission on Human Rights found "extremely grave" human rights violations in 2001.
                            Iraqi production and use of weapons of mass destruction (biological weapons, chemical weapons, and long-range missiles), all in violation of U.N. resolutions.
                            Iraq used proceeds from the "oil for food" U.N. program to purchase weapons rather than food for its people.
                            Iraq flagrantly violated the terms of the weapons inspection program before discontinuing it altogether.

                            Following the speech, intensive negotiations began with other members of the Security Council. In particular, three permanent members (with veto power) of the Council were known to have misgivings about an invasion of Iraq: Russia, People's Republic of China, and France.
                            Do you see a trend developing?

                            In the meantime, Iraq, while denying all charges, announced that it would permit the re-entry of United Nations arms inspectors into Iraq. The United States characterized this as a ploy by Iraq and continued to call for a Security Council resolution which would authorize the use of military force.[citation needed]

                            The resolution text was drafted jointly by the United States and the UK, the result of eight weeks of tumultuous negotiations, particularly with Russia and France. France questioned the phrase "serious consequences" and stated repeatedly that any "material breach" found by the inspectors should not automatically lead to war; instead the UN should pass another resolution deciding on the course of action. In favour of this view is the fact that previous resolutions legitimizing war under Chapter VII used much stronger terms, like "…all necessary means…" in Resolution 678 in 1990 and that Resolution 1441 stated that the Security Council shall "remain seized of the matter."

                            The Security Council Vote

                            On 8 November 2002, the Security Council passed Resolution 1441 by a unanimous 15 to 0 vote, which included Russia, China and France, and Arab countries, such as Syria. This gave this resolution wider support than even the 1990 Gulf War resolution. Although the Iraqi parliament voted against honoring the UN resolution, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein over-ruled them.[citation needed]

                            While some politicians have argued that the resolution could authorize war under certain circumstances, the representatives in the meeting were clear that this was not the case. The ambassador for the United States, John Negroponte, said:“ [T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12.[2] ”


                            The ambassador for the United Kingdom, the co-sponsor of the resolution, said:“ We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about "automaticity" and "hidden triggers" -- the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response... There is no "automaticity" in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12. We would expect the Security Council then to meet its responsibilities.[3] ”


                            The message was further confirmed by the ambassador for Syria:“ Syria voted in favour of the resolution, having received reassurances from its sponsors, the United States of America and the United Kingdom, and from France and Russia through high-level contacts, that it would not be used as a pretext for striking against Iraq and does not constitute a basis for any automatic strikes against Iraq. The resolution should not be interpreted, through certain paragraphs, as authorizing any State to use force. It reaffirms the central role of the Security Council in addressing all phases of the Iraqi issue.[4]

                            Implementation of resolution It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with Iraq disarmament crisis. (Discuss)


                            Iraq agreed to the Resolution on 13 November.[citation needed] Weapons inspectors returned on November 27, led by Hans Blix of UNMOVIC and Mohamed ElBaradei of the International Atomic Energy Agency. The inspectors had been absent from Iraq since December 1998 when they were withdrawn immediately prior to Operation Desert Fox

                            Inspectors began visiting sites where WMD production was suspected, but found no evidence of such activities, except for 18 undeclared 122mm chemical rockets that were destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision. P. 30 As was discovered after the invasion of Iraq, no production of WMDs was taking place, and no stockpiles existed. U.N. inspectors also found that the Al-Samoud-2 and Al-fatah missiles violated U.N. range restrictions, the former also being partially destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision. Debate about Resolution 1441 therefore turns on whether, despite the absence of WMDs and the acceptance of inspections, Iraq failed to comply with the terms of the Resolution, and whether an invasion was justified in the absence of any further UN Security resolutions on the subject.

                            On December 7, 2002, Iraq filed its 12,000-page weapons declaration with the UN in order to meet requirements for this resolution. The five permanent members of the Security Council received unedited versions of the report, while an edited version was made available for other UN Member States. On December 19, Hans Blix reported before the United Nations and stated in regards to Iraq's December 7 report (unedited version): "During the period 1991-1998, Iraq submitted many declarations called full, final and complete. Regrettably, much in these declarations proved inaccurate or incomplete or was unsupported or contradicted by evidence. In such cases, no confidence can arise that proscribed programmes or items have been eliminated." By March, Blix declared that the December 7 report had not brought any new documentary evidence to light.

                            Iraq continued to fail to account for substantial chemical and biological stockpiles which UNMOVIC inspectors had confirmed as existing as late as 1998. Iraq claimed that it had disposed of its anthrax stockpiles at a specific site, but UNMOVIC found this impossible to confirm since Iraq had not allowed the destruction to be witnessed by inspectors as required by the pertinent Resolutions. Chemical testing done at the site was unable to show that any anthrax had been destroyed there.

                            Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei presented several reports to the UN detailing Iraq's level of compliance with Resolution 1441.[2] [3] [4]. On January 27, 2003 Chief UN Weapons Inspector Blix addressed the UN Security Council and stated "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance -- not even today -- of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."[5] Blix went on to state that the Iraqi regime had allegedly misplaced "1,000 tonnes" of VX nerve agent -- one of the most toxic ever developed.[6]

                            By mid-February the issues of anthrax, the nerve agent VX and long-range missiles remained unresolved. Blix's March 7 report stated "Iraq, with a highly developed administrative system, should be able to provide more documentary evidence about its proscribed weapons programmes. Only a few new such documents have come to light so far and been handed over since we began inspections."

                            At this point, the US Administration asserted that Iraq remained in material breach of the UN Resolutions, and that, under 1441, this meant the Security Council had to convene immediately "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".

                            Before the meeting took place, French president Jacques Chirac declared on March 10 that France would veto any resolution which would automatically lead to war. This caused open displays of dismay by the US and British governments. The drive by Britain for unanimity and a "second resolution" was effectively abandoned at that point.

                            In the leadup to the meeting, it became apparent that a majority of UNSC members would oppose any resolution leading to war. As a result, no such resolution was put to the Council.

                            At the Azores conference of March 16, Tony Blair, George W. Bush, and Spanish prime minister José María Aznar announced the imminent deadline of March 17 for complete Iraqi compliance, with statements such as "Tomorrow is a moment of truth for the world". On the 17th, speeches by Bush and UK foreign secretary Jack Straw explicitly declared the period of diplomacy to be over, as declared by Resolution 1441's prohibition on giving Iraq new opportunities for compliance, and that no further authorization from the UN would be sought before an invasion of Iraq (see 2003 invasion of Iraq). The USA and Britain, while admitting that such a resolution was diplomatically desirable, insisted that Iraq had now been given enough time (noting also the time since the first disarmament resolutions of 1991) to disarm or provide evidence thereof, and that war was legitimized by 1441 and previous UN resolutions. Non-permanent Security Council member Spain declared itself with the USA and Britain. Nevertheless, this position taken by the Bush administration and its supporters, has been and still is being disputed by numerous legal experts. According to most members of the Security Council, it is up to the council itself, and not individual members, to determine how the body's resolutions are to be enforced.[7][8][9]
                            Life is not measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.
                            "Hating America is something best left to Mobius. He is an expert Yank hater.
                            He also hates Texans and Australians, he does diversify." ~ Braindead

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              I've read 1441. Many times, thanks. It's you who don't know what it says. The people who drafted says it didn't authorize unilateral force:

                              "[T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12." -- John Negroponte, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.

                              "We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about "automaticity" and "hidden triggers" -- the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response... There is no "automaticity" in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12. We would expect the Security Council then to meet its responsibilities." - U.K. ambassador to the U.N.

                              1441 did not authorize the use of force, period.

                              EDIT: Funny how the quotes I used are directly above the section you copied.

                              EDIT 2: Jebus, Sloww... from the very thing you quoted:

                              At this point, the US Administration asserted that Iraq remained in material breach of the UN Resolutions, and that, under 1441, this meant the Security Council had to convene immediately "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".

                              Before the meeting took place, French president Jacques Chirac declared on March 10 that France would veto any resolution which would automatically lead to war. This caused open displays of dismay by the US and British governments. The drive by Britain for unanimity and a "second resolution" was effectively abandoned at that point.

                              In the leadup to the meeting, it became apparent that a majority of UNSC members would oppose any resolution leading to war. As a result, no such resolution was put to the Council.
                              In other words, even the U.S. and U.K. acknowledged that 1441 did not authorize force and that another U.N. resolution was required to authorize it. When they realized the U.N. would not authorize it, they just went ahead and attacked anyway without bothering for U.N. sanction.
                              Tutto nel mondo è burla

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Bull****.
                                Life is not measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.
                                "Hating America is something best left to Mobius. He is an expert Yank hater.
                                He also hates Texans and Australians, he does diversify." ~ Braindead

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X