If you want to argue about influence, you could argue that America's influence extends to virtually every country in the world. You have no case based on direct influence(i.e. controlled elections), you have to rely on indirect influence. The problem with that is you could argue that for everybody. As for 1441. We disagree on the interpretation, big surprise. The words are on my side, you have to argue a secondary meaning to them.
No, you are quite simply wrong! By your interpretation you believe that every single resolution passed on Iraq by the UN between 660 and the end of the world has the authorisation for military action to uphold it. This notion is imbecilic. "all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660" can only refer to resoutions regarding the situation between Iraq and Kuwait passed subsequent to 660 and up to 678 in which military action is authorised to uphold those specific resolutions. It can not extend into the future, into unforeseen circumstances more than a decade later. The UN does not authorise military action against countries indefinitely, that's absurd.
This is CLEARLY your interpretation and judgment on the issue. The WORDS match what i say, they dont match what you say. You are reading into subsequent to really say "subsequent..but only up to 678!" That is pure interpretation. Think about it, there is a reason the US and the UK pushed for this clause.
Nonsense, it mentions resolution 660 and the relevant resolutions subsequent to it, but this was written in 1990, in resolution 678, and so clearly refers only to those known resolutions which had been passed up to that point. How can this possibly refer to resolutions which have not yet been written in regard to situations which had not yet arisen? Do you seriously believe that all resolutions on Iraq passed for the whole of the rest of time are backed by authorised military force? This is clearly your interpretation and judgement of these words which by any recognisable standard of coherence, is a fatuously inaccurate and imbecilic one.
the words used were 'all relevant resolutions.' Do you disagree that the disarming of iraq(a stipulation of the cease fire) was relevant? I think you are either lying or completely misled if you dont believe its relevant. Do we have the right to use military force in iraq for subsequent resolutions? No, The issue is setteld, our rights to use that clause is DONE. I firmly believe that resolution made the war legal. Whether the war was right i'm not so sure. But was the war illegal? I dont think you have a firm base to stand on.
The disarming of Iraq as set out under 687 is relevant but nonetheless a different issue to the one dealt with by 660. Once the requirements of 660 and subsequent resolutions had been fulfilled following 678's authorisation of military action to oust Saddam from Kuwait, that authorisation ran out. I believe this is one of the factors informing Bush Snr's decision not to go on to Baghdad in 1991: resolution 678 did not authorise such a thing.
lets recall the first paragraph of 1441 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, To deny that 1441 is a relevant and subsequent resolution to 660 is just foolish and ignores all language of the resolution.
No you miss the point. 1441 is by definition relevant to and subsequent to 660, but that does not answer the point I have made. The fact remains that 660 talked about expelling Saddam from Kuwait, and military force for this purpose was authorised in 678. Once this was achieved the authorisation for military force for 660 and subsequent resolutions ran out. 1441 dealt primarily with the disarmament issues raised in 687, under a set of circumstances wholly different to those which existed prior to the first gulf war when 660 and 678 were written in 1990. To claim that the authorisation for military force to expel Saddam from Kuwait also authorises invasion and regime change in Iraq is nonsense - it did not in 1991, it did not in 2003. Any further military action following the successful completion of the objectives of 660-678 would need to be specifically authorised by the UN. It is tenuous in the extreme to claim that the authorisation for the action to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait in 1991 also authorised invasion and regime change in 2003. This is indeed the legal claim made by Lord Goldsmith in his advice to Tony Blair, but many prominent international lawyers stated at the time that it simply was not the case. Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the UN, said the same thing earlier this year: "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm
Indirect influence? Invading countries with the objective of regime change, nation building, that's pretty direct imperialistic influence. You could also argue the case for direct, politically motivated economic hegemony exercised by bodies such as the World Bank and the IMF.
Kofi annan is not a lawyer nor a judge, so his opinion is equivalent to yours or mine. The whole question comes down to what 'subsequent' means. You take it to mean from 660 to 678..i take it from 660 until the iraqi/kuwait situation is done. I think with the way the the wording of 1441 is written, it is in the favor of my stance. I'll leave it at that, since there is no clear cut answer and it would take a legal battle and judgment to decide who is right.
I would be inclined to believe the opinion of the Secretary General of the United Nations over yours. Sorry, but I would. You see this goes to the crux of the issue: the Iraq / Kuwait situation was resolved in everything other than technicality 12 years prior to the passing of 1441. The situation over which war was declared in 2003 was nominally about a weapons inspections regime mandated in 687, a resolution passed following the succesful fulfilment of the requirements of 678. There followed 12 years of containment and sanctions, not to mention overwhelmingly successful disarmament and monitoring. To call the 2003 war the same war, over the same set of circumstances for which military action was authorised in 1990 is ludicrous. But that's what the legal case depends upon. I'm glad you seem at last to have realised just how tenuous the interpretation you place on these resolutions really needs to be in order to uphold the legality of this war. Who would win were Blair and Bush tried in an international court? I really can't say. But better people than you have stated that this war was and remains illegal, including the Secretary General of the United Nations itself. Why do you think there was such an intense effort to get a resolution subsequent to 1441 which would authorise military action? Because there was no such authorisation from 678, 13 years previously.
I really can't believe it! And it's left me much more disappointed than I was expecting. It was said earlier Bush and Kerry are as bad as each other, which I agree with really, party wise neither are the saviors or whatever. But the Bush administration is far more dangerous to world health than Kerry's surely. America wise Bush has created them far more enemies than they had on September 11th. How he can use the line "We've got Saddam, there's proof the word is a safer place" is beyond me like! How Dubya was even allowed to run for a second term is insane! Even HE now has admitted now WMD's in Iraq, none in production either. No link with Saddam and Bin Laden. Just an invasion they'd be sorry for if they didn't capture an evil dictator while they were on. Even Koffi is up there calling it illegal (not that I'm wanting to get in on Showmet's conversation ) So yeah, come on - A fixed vote in 2000, failure to get the man who attacked in 2001, illegal war 2002 with massive losses of allied solgiers and iraqi citizens, creating of a whole new breed of america haters, no end in sight... Yet he's still legally allowed to run for president and what's more Americans actually want him
Well said. Yeh, They are both as bad as each other in a lot of ways.... The reason I wanted Kerry in was that his foreign policy would be less aggresive and therefore would not add as much fuel to the already uncontrollable fire. Now however, I fear we are ALLLLL DOOOOOOOMED!!!!!!!
I agree that George Bush is incompetant for not taking the threat of terrorism more seriously before the September 11th attacks, which would never have happened if he had. But I don't want to see him abandom the war on terror, after all Al Qaeda attacked America first. I also don't disagree with removing Saddam, his regime was evil and cruel beyond belief, as Bush said himself after describing the atrocities of the regime; "if that is not evil then evil has no meaning." Sure hes' cocked the war in Iraq up by not anticipating the chaos that ensued and not listening to his advisors who told him it would take hundreds of thousands of troops to pacify Iraq. But the principle of the war was right. Even John Kerry said he would not abandom Iraq but get other countries to send troops so American troop numbers could be reduced. I personally would have voted for John Kerry if he could do a better job of handling the war on terror.
I am alarmed by the concept of a president who, in this day and age, considers himself some kind of crusader against evil. Sure we should protect the world, but what's the urgency? All the nations of the world have had their 9/11s in the past, events that hit home how ruthless people can be. Using it as a carte blanche to knock the crap out of any old country you don't like, while at the same flagrantly ignoring the ones you do, is Not On.
The USA is the biggest terrorist threat we have in our times, Treehouse.... The USA have "attacked many countries first" read some Noam Chomsky maybe? The principle of the war was NOT right, don't start this argument again on this thread.... for the love of god man But yes, Kerry would have done a better job of handling the war on terror... who wouldn't
Yeah. I'm preddy unhappy about the results of the polls, even if Kerry is/was no angel. I can only hope that given America's military commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq, plus the nations now astronomical military/security budget PLUS any other wars Bush and co. decide to jump in (and let's face it, that's a very real possibility) that they will be financially crippled and unable to extend their imperialistic arm any further than they so far have.
I think probably 99% of people are pretty happy about getting rid of Saddam, no doubt about that. There is that 1% who were on his side all along + a fair amount of people who now think Iraq was safer and worked better under him. This number grows everyday we occupy. Not that I think we should pull out or anything, we've knocked it down we can help build it back up this time. Well, I think the Americans have probably done as much good as they can there for now. America will constantly be fighting 'insurgents' in Iraq, everytime they kill one they create another (in a basic way). So maybe they should leave this final stage up to us and other allies. Is Bush still fighting the entire war on terror? Like, all the countries on his old axis of evil - does he still plan to sort them too? As far as I see it, his war on terror now consists of a small army looking for Osama and Co, a huge army bombing about Iraq, plus a few unhappy citizens there shooting back. The people shooting at Americans in Iraq only want one thing, American's to bugger off. Oh and maybe get round to reading some human/legal rights to a couple thousand terror suspect prisoners. And wasn't that even Osama himself saying the other day he was more likely to talk with Kerry (or anyone) instead of Bush? Not that I think we should trust him or that these talks would achieve anything - But there'll be no peace under Bush, you can be sure of that.
He wasn't even fit to run a country, he squandered billions of oil revenue on his vast presidential palaces which was many times bigger including grounds than Buckingham Palace and on his vast army to intimidate his neighbours. While his people lived in appalling poverty, the oil for food programme set up by the UN after Gulf War one to help his people therefore failed because he was aquandering all the money.[/quote] The war on terror is to take on terrorist groups like Al Qaeda, not neccessarly take on all rogue states, unless they are helping terrorists. I personally do think that there was some sort of pact between Saddam and Bin Laden, why for example was one of the 1993 World Trade Centre bombers allowed to stay in Bagdad? Why did Saddam not send in his elite Republican Guard to smash Al Qaeda operating in Northern Iraq if he hated them so much? (The no fly zone in the north did not ban ground troops only fighter aircraft). Why did Al Qaeda never attack Iraq if Bin Laden hated Saddam so much? Obviously the two had some sort of non-aggresion pact.
