Quoting Jamie Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 01:39:59PM -0600, Keith Ray wrote: > > The UN authorized force in resolution 678 to uphold current and future > > resolutions. The UN voted unanimously to declare Iraq in violation of > > previous UN resolutions in 1441. The UN weapons inspector's reports > > detailed many omissions in Iraq's weapons declaration and failures to > > fully cooperate with inspectors. > > Perhaps you should actually read the documents you reference. The legal > arguments the Bush Regime are floating this week are contradicted > by statements they've floated in getting the resolution passed. Of > course this is to be expected, and they'll have a new batch of fatuous > bullshit next week. They fact that you're buying the flavor of the month > is amusing, though.
Which resolution took away any Member State's authority to "all necessary means" to uphold resolution 690? Which resolution requires a Member State to seek Security Council approval for future military action? > "France was advocating that a first resolution at the United > Nations Security Council, demanding that Iraq promptly > disclose its weapons and disarm, must be followed by a second > resolution authorizing war if Iraq refused. 'Be sure about > one thing,' Mr. Powell told Dominique de Villepin, the French > foreign minister. 'Don't vote for the first, unless you are > prepared to vote for the second.'" Whether the US chose to pursue a second resolution is immaterial to the fact that it already had the authority under resolution 678. If the UN Security Council wanted to ensure that no military action was taken without a second resolution, they should have put it in 1441 instead of a promise of "serious consequences." > So, I assume you're basing you're views on the New, Improved Powell, not > that silly, confused one that spoke pushed the resolution last time > around, right? What will you agree with next week? I am basing my views of the actual text of the resolutions. > > This is no excuse for use of unconventional warfare against the US nor does > > it delegitimize the US's use of force to defend themselves. > > > > As far as dragging the nation to war, 70% of the American people > > are behind him. > > (1) Please explain how a preemptive war against a country under more > scrutiny than any other which has utterly failed to make any meaningful > threat in the last 10 years is defensive? As others have pointed out, N. > Korea is entirely justified in bombing DC under the "Bush Doctrine". > Please, compare and contrast. Force against Iraq is not pre-emptive since it is authorized by the UN Security Council resolutions 678 and 1441. North Korea does not have the authority under any UN Security Council resolution to take military action against any country. > (2) Please explain exactly what moral system (which you apparently > subscribe to) which states that if 7 out of ten say something, it is a > morally correct action? No one, including me, has stated that popular support equals moral justification. I was merely pointing out that Bush was not "dragging us into war" since there was popular support for war. > (3) I'm not going to bother with "excuses for use of unconventional > warfare". The lack of objective difference between "freedom fighter" > and "terrorist", the long history of US meddling, and the obvious > reasons for this war (Halliburton, the Carlyle Group, personal vandetta) > are obviously no match for your inciteful jingoism and moral mandate > to inflict peace and freedom on others at gunpoint. In this particular case, we were discussing terrorists, not Iraq. I have never said that instituting democracy, peace, or any other way-of-life is justification for war. > Analysis / The U.S. is almost alone in its war on Iraq We are alone with Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan (post conflict), Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, Britain, and Uzbekistan. -- Keith Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- OpenPGP Key: 0x79269A12
