02-02-2005, 03:32 AM
Quote:It has to do with Saddam having 13 years and 17 U.N. Resolutions to comply
Only the UN can enforce it's resolutions, no nation can legally do so. When the UN authorizes the use of force, it words it as "the use of all necessary means." That's how it was worded in 1990 when condemning Hussein's invasion of Kuwait and authorized the use of force against Iraq.
It is well documented that Dubya assured our allies diplomatically that 1441 was not going to be used as an automatic justification for invasion. The initial draft would have allowed for that, but the French and Russians wouldn't agree to it, so a compromise was made.
Text of U.N. resolution on Iraq
# 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;
The arms inspectors did report back to the UN, and the Security Council convened immediately, but did not authorize "the use of all necessary means." Bringing up the "serious consequences" in #13 is good PR, but a stab in the back diplomatically to the countries who voted for 1441 with the agreement that it would not by itself justify an invasion. That's why so many of our allies were so angry when the Administration started using 1441 as justification.
Here's one website arguing the case
A more balanced account, but still dismissive of the "serious consequences" argument
Also to note: Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits any nation from using force. The Charter contains only two exceptions: when such force is employed in self-defense or when it is authorized by the UN Security Council. Thus far the Security Council has been unwilling to authorize a U.S. attack against Iraq. This refusal, reflecting the widespread international sentiment against war with Iraq, makes any unilateral U.S. attack on Iraq illegal under international law.
Article 51 of the Charter sets forth the exception for self-defense. A nation can employ self-defense only "if an armed attack occurs," or, as a number of authorities have argued, in response to an imminent attack. None of the reasons given by the Bush administration for attacking Iraq, including destruction of claimed weapons of mass destruction or overthrowing Saddam Hussein, constitute self-defense under the UN Charter. The Bush administration has presented no evidence that Iraq currently presents an imminent threat of attack against the U.S.
FPIF.org
Quote:Oh, and spare me the no WMD argument. While I admit that’s a blow, it still doesn’t answer where they are.
Lessons of the Duelfer Report
The main finding of the top US arms inspector for Iraq, Charles Duelfer, was that his team couldn't find any major weapons stockpiles in Iraq and that Mr. Hussein had not kept an active capability to resume his chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons program.
The reason Hussein gave up his weapons program, the report concludes, is that the UN-sponsored embargo of oil exports denied him the billions and billions of dollars needed to keep them going. But in order to maintain prestige among Arabs and deter another war with Iran, Hussein kept secret for many years that he had abandoned the programs.
Duelfer Report in its entirety
Seriously, were you still trying to imply that there are still some secret, hidden WMDs? Are you retarded?