Forums | MacLife

Actually, it's not true the UN has decided not to enforce the resolution. Iraq has been under UN sanction for over ten years, pending a successful conclusion to the inspections regime.

You know, the Russian ambassador to the UN said something interesting: if the US has any indication of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, it should immediately hand it over to the weapons inspectors.

Personally, I think the idea of this flimsy "Iraq may one day become a threat" argument is sad. I could have sworn war used to be a bad thing; a last resort.

Another thing about the UN resolution is that it doesn't explicitly authorize the use of force.

Can we keep this about the Resolution please?  It'll make it easier for everyone in the end.   thanks!

Can we keep this about the Resolution please?  It'll make it easier for everyone in the end.   thanks!

Good point.  Sorry...

And wasn't 1441 the Resolution they just passed last year. Not the one they passed after the war.

Hmmm.. I don't know.  I just hear people throwing around Resolution 1441.  Well, either one, I'd love to know more about any pertinent resolutions that the UN made regarding Iraq.

Why should the US enforce UN Resolution 1441 then, or more to what I am insuating:  is that resolution simply a red herring for a different agenda?

I think you have hit the nail on the head here, r_u.  The UN did not seem all too keen on taking serious action for almost a decade, and now this.  Notice that action in Iraq has taken place only during administrations that were, to borrow a recent phrase from Ralph Nader, "marinated in oil."  I think the current admin is simply using the UN resolution to lend legitamacy to their actions.

Here's the text of Resolution 1441
http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm

and of Resolution 660:
http://www.mideastweb.org/660.htm
This is to compel Iraq to cease and desist it's incursion into Kuwait.

and of Resolution 661
http://www.mideastweb.org/661.htm

and Resolution 678:
http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0678.htm
This is the authorization to use military force to bring about compliance with resolution 660.

Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660

and of Resolution 687:
http://www.mideastweb.org/687.htm
. . . in which the terms of Iraqui disarmament are stated.

Basically, Iraq has been in violation of Resolution 687 since 1991, and has been suffering economic sanctions, I believe that they were allowed by the US to sell a certain amount of oil, the proceeds from which were to be used to buy food. . . which ended up basically feeding the army and has resulted in difficulties borne by the citizens of Iraq. The US continued to enforce sanctions against Iraq even though it has been shown that the army eats while the population starves. One could argue that the onus was on Saddam, but one could also argue that the onus was on US to come up with some sort of plan which would not punish the citizens of Iraq. The basis of this idea is that the US knew, based on experience, what Saddam would do regarding the distribution of foodstuffs.

Resolution 1441 does not provide for the use of force. . . it only warns of serious consequences in the event of non-compliance.

Yes, I remember 1441 now.  Thanks isaly for the link!  I didn't even know there was an .int tld!

The US and GB drafted it, and revised it to appease the Security Council.  I remeber quite clearly now.  (prety dull reading though ) It's not a very conclusive document, but as it is a UN document, and the UN is pleased with the way its resolutions are being handled in Iraq, why should the US step forward to enforce a UN resolution?  Or again, is this just a red herring for a different agenda?

How is the UN pleased?  They continuously keeping stating that Iraq is in violation of every single resolution.  That's like stating the police are pleased with the results of a murder investigation that never uncovered a suspect!

The UN can very easily put additional pressure on Iraq, but they do not.   How could they be anything but pleased?  Don't you think that if they were displeased they would mention it?  There have been plenty of opportunities at the UN to talk about Iraq.

I'm guessing that what 'you're hearing' is really propaganda aimed at creating a public agreement with the current US administration's stance on Iraq. The UN is not 'spineless', if you read the text of Resolution 678, you'd see that it's anything but spineless.

Do you think they would keep condemning Iraq if they were "pleased?"  The UN is spineless.  Not pleased.

Bingo! Spineless cowards would be more fitting, the reason the US upholds the UN resolutions is simply that no other country in the world can or will. In my opinion the US should just kick their (UN) sorry butts out of NY and call it quits, the costs are not worth the effort to keep it going.

If you can remember back to last fall, President Bush was all for going into Iraq alone "unilateralism" but it was Colin Powell who made the case for an international effort through the UN (multilateralism). It seems though that even after his revealing presentation yesterday and with the continuing objections of France and Russia, Powell is losing patience with the UN as well.

macul - if you're going to make that statement you should back it up with something concrete.

The UN has not authorized the use of military force in Resolution 1441. The UN is well aware of the range of options available. To quote an oft used sentence from those who often deride those of us who do not suffer from the itch to invade, 'What do YOU know that they don't know?'

You're ignoring the fact that when the UN authorized force Iraq was actively invading another internationally recognized soverignty and was considerably more well armed than they are now. I think that if the UN felt that Iraq was a real threat, they'd have given us the good to go.

macul - if you're going to make that statement you should back it up with something concrete.

The UN has not authorized the use of military force in Resolution 1441. The UN is well aware of the range of options available. To quote an oft used sentence from those who often deride those of us who do not suffer from the itch to invade, 'What do YOU know that they don't know?'

You're ignoring the fact that when the UN authorized force Iraq was actively invading another internationally recognized soverignty and was considerably more well armed than they are now. I think that if the UN felt that Iraq was a real threat, they'd have given us the good to go.

Please, address what I said.  I'm not arguing whether or not the UN is/has/will authorize military force.  I'm arguing ru's contention that the UN is pleased with Iraq.

Apparently they are pleased enough that they haven't authorized force.  That's about as specific as I can get because I don't have the links to back up anything else.

macul - if you're going to make that statement you should back it up with something concrete.

The UN has not authorized the use of military force in Resolution 1441. The UN is well aware of the range of options available. To quote an oft used sentence from those who often deride those of us who do not suffer from the itch to invade, 'What do YOU know that they don't know?'

You're ignoring the fact that when the UN authorized force Iraq was actively invading another internationally recognized soverignty and was considerably more well armed than they are now. I think that if the UN felt that Iraq was a real threat, they'd have given us the good to go.

Please, address what I said.  I'm not arguing whether or not the UN is/has/will authorize military force.  I'm arguing ru's contention that the UN is pleased with Iraq.

Apparently they are pleased enough that they haven't authorized force.  That's about as specific as I can get because I don't have the links to back up anything else.

Well, my opinion is that the UN is too spineless to do anything about the situation.