Quote:
|
Evidently you're too lazy to read the entire report.
|
Absolutely. It was interesting for a while until I realized that it is impossible to see what sources they were referring to. And then simply irritating when I reckognized some of it. For instance, the much quoted interview from '95 with the iraqi general who later were assassinated when he returned home to Iraq. They conviniently left out all the things he said about how Iraq lacked the capabilities to produce anything, as well as what he said about how most of the projects dealing with the illegal weapons had simply been discontinued. The only interesting part of that for the isg seems to have been the documented attempts to covertly start various programs during the aftermath of desert storm. The isg does not mention the timeframe, however, and apparently(because of the lack of clear language and references, I cannot say) refers to this particular bit of proof when claiming that "this programme was covertly conducted/revitalized/reaffirmed or whatever when the inspection regime was not in place".. or something similar. Believe me, I had higher hopes for that report. Luckily, I seem to share that opinion with at least some representatives in Washington.
Quote:
|
Force was authorized by UNSCR 678; UNSCR 687 suspended, but did not terminate the authority to use force;
|
http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm
"grave consequences would follow any further use by Iraq of such weapons,"(illegal weapons according to the 1925 geneva protocol, it says.)
I cannot seem to find any other justification for the use of force in this resolution, so do please explain how this can be applied to the illegal weapons. Perhaps also which part of the resolution you are referring to.
Quote:
|
in UNSCR 1441, it was unanimously agreed that Iraq was in material breach of 687. The UN had the authority, and responsibility to hold Iraq accountable - it just lacked the desire.
|
Given that 1441 did sanction force to rid the country of wmds, they still were not yet found, now were they? Of course, "we know where they are, they're north, south, west and east of Bagdad" as Rumsfeld said.
Quote:
|
No matter how many times you say this was an illegal war, it won't make it an illegal war. If you're so sure of your case, take the US to court.
|
I'm just saying that as per definition, this particular war had not been sanctioned by the security council. The member states did not agree with the action taken. That makes the invasion as illegal as Saddam's invation of Kuwait, even if there were all kinds of justifications for it. Actually, an interpretation of what you're saying, which would look very much like what the heads in washington is saying, is that you do not see the authority of the UN as an important one, and not as a legitimate one either. That this seems to be conviniently forgotten when a creative interpretation of the security council's rulings might serve the cause, really doesn't look very good. Unless we're all agreed that one country should be the authority of the UN, of course.
About going to court. It seems that no amount of recommendations in the UN, that is, from the different representatives of the member states, will change the current administration's minds, so I don't know about that. Do you think an american court rule would be heeded? It's actually an interesting prospect now that I've come to think about it. It could be made a case based upon that international treaties which are ratified by Congress - eg. the UN charter - should be treated as law, and then it could easily be proven that the administration had actually broken american law. Ha. That almost made me laugh, you know.