>>> f there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the >>> IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for >>> discussions as required in paragraph 12.
As the US had already said that PRIOR UNSC Resolutions gave them the authorization, the wording here requires that further DISCUSION but not necessarily a a further vote is required... >>> If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the >>> matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12. We would expect the Security Council then to meet its responsibilities.[3] Same as above... Read the Resolution yourself http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/682/26/PDF/N0268226.pdf?OpenElement As to the Syrian Ambassador, Resolution 1441 was written with sufficient ambiguity as to allow tow interpretations: 1) a second vote was required, and 2) a second vote was NOTE required... You assume that the Resolution HAD to mean a second vote was required... Collin Powell in Feb, 2003... My position is that there was deliberate ambiguity meant to placate both positions and that Resolution 1441 was thus meant to continue to disagreement on this question rather than resolve it... Further I suggest all side were aware of the core disagreement as to the two differing interpretations, so they crafted a document to justify both sides in their positions... Now if you were honest, you would accept that these are the facts and that the conclusion the the US acted unilaterally is only support IF ONE ASSUMES clarity in Resolution 1441 on the point that it required a second vote... I suggest it did not... http://www.worldpress.org/specials/iraq/ >>> Powell's argument could be divided into two main tracks. The first centered >>> on the premise that Iraq had to face the penalties for having flouted >>> numerous Security Council resolutions. "Last Nov. 8, this council passed >>> Resolution 1441 by a unanimous vote," the secretary said. "The purpose of >>> that resolution was to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. Iraq >>> had already been found guilty of material breach of its obligations, >>> stretching back over 16 previous resolutions and 12 years." >>> After asserting that Iraq still maintained a banned weapons program and had >>> not complied with inspectors as required, Powell noted: "Iraq has now >>> placed itself in danger of the serious consequences called for in U.N. >>> Resolution 1441. And this body places itself in danger of irrelevance if it >>> allows Iraq to continue to defy its will without responding effectively and >>> immediately." >>> Powell's second argument concerned the risk Saddam Hussein's government >>> posed to the United States and its allies. Alleging that Iraq's "weapons >>> can be connected to terrorist organizations that have no compunction about >>> using such devices against innocent people around the world," Powell >>> asserted that Al-Qaeda "could turn to Iraq for help in acquiring expertise >>> on weapons of mass destruction." This potential has put the United States >>> in grave danger, he suggested. "Given Saddam Hussein's history of >>> aggression, given what we know of his grandiose plans, given what we know >>> of his terrorist associations, and given his determination to exact revenge >>> on those who oppose him, should we take the risk that he will not some day >>> use these weapons at a time and the place and in the manner of his choosing >>> at a time when the world is in a much weaker position to respond?" he asked. [snip] >>> Resolution 1441's second ambiguity is even more significant. While the >>> resolution makes clear that the Security Council must reconvene to discuss >>> how to deal with Iraqi noncompliance, it does not make clear whether the >>> council must pass another resolution at such a meeting, authorizing the use >>> of force, or whether member states may simply act on their own. This difference of opinion came into focus during the discussion following the adoption of Resolution 1441. At that time, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Negroponte said: "This resolution contains no 'hidden triggers' and no 'automaticity' with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA, or a Member State, the matter will return to the council for discussion….[But] if the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violations, this resolution does not constrain any member state from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce the relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security." The British ambassador, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, agreed. But others saw things differently. The French ambassador expressed relief that "a two-stage approach" would ensure "that the Security Council would maintain control of the process at each stage." The Russian representative made clear that "the resolution just adopted contains no provisions for the automatic use of force" and warned against "yielding to the temptation of unilateral interpretation of the resolution's provisions." The Chinese delegate similarly said: "China supports the two-stage approach." Several nonpermanent Security Council members agreed. The Irish delegate noted: "As far as Ireland is concerned, it is for the Council to decide on any ensuing action." The Mexican ambassador stressed that "the use of force is valid only as a last resort, with prior explicit authorization required from the Security Council." The Bulgarian delegate said: "This resolution is not a pretext for automatic recourse to the use of force." The Colombian representative noted: "This resolution is not, nor could it be at this time, a resolution to authorize the use of force." Similarly, the ambassador from Cameroon expressed relief that the resolution "does not contain traps or automaticity." And the Syrian ambassador said: "The resolution should not be interpreted, through certain paragraphs, as authorizing any State to use force. It reaffirms the central role of the Security Council in addressing all phases of the Iraqi issue." On Dec 23, 11:23 am, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > Some Urban Myth, > > You have NOTHING that trumps these statements by the men who WROTE the > resolution 1441. > > The ambassador for the United States, John Negroponte, said: > " [T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no > "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further > Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member > State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as > required in paragraph 12. > > The ambassador for the United Kingdom, the co-sponsor of the resolution, said: > " We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about > "automaticity" and "hidden triggers" -- the concern that on a decision > so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision > so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. > Let me be equally clear in response... There is no "automaticity" in > this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament > obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as > required in paragraph 12. We would expect the Security Council then to > meet its responsibilities.[3] > > The message was further confirmed by the ambassador for Syria: > " Syria voted in favour of the resolution, having received > reassurances from its sponsors, the United States of America and the > United Kingdom, and from France and Russia through high-level > contacts, that it would not be used as a pretext for striking against > Iraq and does not constitute a basis for any automatic strikes against > Iraq. The resolution should not be interpreted, through certain > paragraphs, as authorizing any State to use force. It reaffirms the > central role of the Security Council in addressing all phases of the > Iraqi issue.[4] > > And yet the US invaded unilaterally and illegally. > > > > On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 9:37 AM, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > First, the UNSC was NOT ignored... There was authorization given by > > prior Chapter VII Resolutions on Iraq, and the Cease Fire > > Agreement... The claim that the UN was ignored is ANOTHER URBAN > > myth... > > > On Dec 22, 5:22 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Since the UNSC was ignored in order to invade don't you find it > >> hypocritical to use their standards as any proof. > > >> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 2:21 PM, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > Mark Russia sent its soldiers into Georgian territory and unilaterally > >> > declared part of Georgia Independent... I note the unwillingness on > >> > your part to DISCUSS ideas... For example > > >> > If one insisted on facts, talking to most of those who opposed Bush in > >> > Iraq would be impossible... Why.. They insist not WMD was found in > >> > Iraq post 2003... WMD was found in Iraq, as defined by the > >> > UNSC... > > >> > But I understand this tactic is meant to NOT DISCUSS ideas while > >> > pretending to yourself you are open-minded... > > >> > On Dec 22, 1:16 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Russia did NOT invade Georgia. It is a lie. An opposing view point > >> >> that begins with an incontrovertable lie is worthless. > > >> >> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 12:14 PM, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> >> > Perhaps your bias is why your opinions suck --- you refuse to read > >> >> > opposing view points... > > >> >> > On Dec 20, 3:06 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> Won't even read it as the title contains a lie. > > >> >> >> One can not invade a nation one has been in legally by open and > >> >> >> admitted consent of that nation. > > >> >> >> On Dec 20, 12:44 pm, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> >> >> >http://cominganarchy.com/2008/12/20/pinned-americas-taiwan-policy-rec... > > >> >> >> > >>> Accordingly, the ultimate goal is preventing hostilities—for > >> >> >> > >>> as long as possible. That means no independence declaration > >> >> >> > >>> and no military invasion. The best way to maintain this is to > >> >> >> > >>> speak Victorian! In other words the US must state that it will > >> >> >> > >>> honor its defense pledge to Taiwan in the event this small > >> >> >> > >>> democratic nation is attacked by an authoritarian communist > >> >> >> > >>> power. And it must supply Taiwan with military hardware > >> >> >> > >>> accordingly. But it cannot overstate its support and push > >> >> >> > >>> Taiwan to "pull a Georgia." The Russian invasion of Georgia > >> >> >> > >>> may end up having an impact on the Far East. We must assume > >> >> >> > >>> that Taiwan has watched the lukewarm American response to > >> >> >> > >>> Russia's invasion with extreme concern, because it shows that > >> >> >> > >>> America really isn't willing to protect reckless leaders that > >> >> >> > >>> may be considered allies. Hopefully it acts to restrain > >> >> >> > >>> Taiwan's urges for declaring independence, and does not > >> >> >> > >>> inspire China about the benefits that could be reaped from an > >> >> >> > >>> invasion.- Hide quoted text - > > >> >> >> > - Show quoted text - > > >> >> -- > >> >> Mark M. Kahle > >> >> Blessed are the bewildered for they don't know the difference.... Me > > >> -- > >> Mark M. Kahle > >> Blessed are the bewildered for they don't know the difference.... Me > > -- > Mark M. Kahle > Blessed are the bewildered for they don't know the difference.... Me --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
