Lets talk about the soldiers.

[ZECH]

That's a good punchline--can I use it?

Sure!
You know, as much as I hate the UN for their non actions in times when we need to act, it's their continued assault on gun rights in this country that I really hate. If they don't like our gun laws, stay the hell out. They have no right what so ever in trying to pursuade the whole world to disarm!

 

[Decker]

I understand exactly what you're saying, and you're ignoring a certain, important, fact: At no time was the US under the command of the UN. Not for a single moment.

You have yet to produce a single document, written before the fact, that stipulates that the UN could decide when the war was over. You have also failed to produce anything in regards to the US saying that the war was over back in 1991. Until you do, you position is...faulty; to say the least.

See resolution 678 and my explanation

You mean it's wrong to ignore the UN, who are a bunch of absoluting corrupt politicians who are trying to use the UN to force their will upon the significantly strong US? Sure, whatever.

Yeah, I know it's easy to laugh. Did you think that civilizing the US (through the establishment of the rule of law) in the days of Manifest Destiny was a hoot too? It's an arduous process.

What are you referring to?

Any semblance of law is still better than lawlessness. That is what you advocate. I cannot accept that


The UN gave the US authorization to legally attack Iraq back in ???91. http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0678.htm
Here it is in its entirety:
RESOLUTION 678 (1990)

Adopted by the Security Council at its 2963rd meeting on 29 November 1990​

The Security Council,
Recalling, and reaffirming its resolutions 660 (1990) of 2 August (1990), 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 662 (1990) of 9 August 1990, 664 (1990) of 18 August 1990, 665 (1990) of 25 August 1990, 666 (1990) of 13 September 1990, 667 (1990) of 16 September 1990, 669 (1990) of 24 September 1990, 670 (1990) of 25 September 1990, 674 (1990) of of 29 October 1990 and 677 (1990) of 28 November 1990.
Noting that, despite all efforts by the United Nations, Iraq refuses to comply with its obligation to implement resolution 660 (1990) and the above-mentioned subsequent relevant resolutions, in flagrant contempt of the Security Council,
Mindful of its duties and responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance and preservation of international peace and security,
Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,
Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter,
1. Demands that Iraq comply fully with resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions, and decides, while maintaining all its decisions, to allow Iraq one final opportunity, as a pause of goodwil, to do so;
2. 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 above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;
3. Requests all States to provide appropriate support for the actions undertaken in pursuance of paragraph 2 of the present resolution;
4. Requests the States concerned to keep the Security Council regularly informed on the progress of actions undertaken pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 3 of the present resolution;
5. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

But what does this mean: 5. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

Here is what it means:

?????? "seized of the matter" - diplomatic-speak for "asserting that it holds the reins over this activity." Unless the Security Council explicitly authorized a policy of "regime change", the Security Council would still remain nominally in charge of setting the limits of what the use of force was directed toward. The use of force might legally be limited to the disarmament of Iraq.???
Source: Crimes of War

See, the UN authorized the force and left the details of execution (???all necessary means???) to the member states to decide. I am not saying that the UN had absolute control of how the US et al. executed the invasion. I am saying that the UN opened the door and the US stepped through. The US had to keep the UN apprised of actions taken. Once the war is over (no more battle???Hussein gives up), the UN sets the terms of the surrender http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm That's why # 5. is important b/c it reserves that right to the Security Council.

As a practical matter, here is the underlying rationale for all the niceties of UN resolutions: regime change. The US wanted Hussein out of power. The US urged the UN to impose sanctions against Iraq. The UN could not condition those sanctions on "regime change" rationale b/c the Security Council did not permit it. Instead the sanctions were predicated on past resolutions and took the following form: Iraq allows the inspections and the sanctions will be lifted. Then the US turned around and said (in violation of the UN resolution authorizing the sanctions) even if Iraq complies with the inspections, the sanctions will continue until Hussein abdicates his ruling authority.

Iraq???s compliance with inspections was not absolute but it was substantial. UNSCOM destroyed most, if not all, of Iraq???s weapons and weapons programs. Around 1998, it was revealed the UNSCOM was spying for the US and Israel by turning information about Hussein//Iraqi command and his//its whereabouts, to those 2 countries, i.e., that information is not info about weapons or weapons programs but is relevant to a plot to overthrow the regime (which is US policy for Iraq). The US bullshitted about Iraq???s total noncompliance and engaged in illegal bombings of the country (desert fox).

Hussein was left with no options: follow the terms of the surrender laid out in res.687 and your country will be sanctioned, disobey the terms of the surrender and your country will still be sanctioned. Whatever Hussein did, the US would sanction/bomb/cajole Hussein out of power. The US does get its way eventually doesn???t it?

 

[Decker]

Sure!
You know, as much as I hate the UN for their non actions in times when we need to act, it's their continued assault on gun rights in this country that I really hate. If they don't like our gun laws, stay the hell out. They have no right what so ever in trying to pursuade the whole world to disarm!

Thanks--my brother will love that joke.

It does sicken me that the UN is marginalized. But remember, the US is not only a member but a creator. We can fix this thing but it takes political will and time.

 

[clemson357]

Sure!
You know, as much as I hate the UN for their non actions in times when we need to act, it's their continued assault on gun rights in this country that I really hate. If they don't like our gun laws, stay the hell out. They have no right what so ever in trying to pursuade the whole world to disarm!

That is the damn truth. The anti-gun movement is scary as hell, both because it is so ignorant and because it is so powerful. The UN refers to civilian small arms, such as pistols, as "weapons of mass destruction," and supports global disarmorment.

 

[clemson357]

Anyway, in my opinion anyone who thinks the US should abide by the UN is a crackpot. Move to England or Switzerland.

 

[Decker]

Anyway, in my opinion anyone who thinks the US should abide by the UN is a crackpot. Move to England or Switzerland.

So Winston Churchhill, FDR and all of the presidents that followed were crackpots?

So it's to hell with the rule of law and any attempt at international law or diplomacy.

Can you see why that view is not even an option?

 

[DOMS]

See resolution 678 and my explanation

678 has everything to do with making Iraq comply and nothing to do with be able to tell the US when it should, and should not, attack. Nice try though.

Yeah, I know it's easy to laugh. Did you think that civilizing the US (through the establishment of the rule of law) in the days of Manifest Destiny was a hoot too? It's an arduous process.

Being "civilized" had nothing to with stopping Manifest Destiny. It was simply the people of the time looking at the rest of the Americas and say "What the hell were we thinking? Who'd want that crap?" They already has the best that the Americas had to offer.

Any semblance of law is still better than lawlessness. That is what you advocate. I cannot accept that

Are you serious? The Mafia had the semblance of being good for the people. Hitler had a semblance of being a man looking out for the people.

The UN only looks the part.

The UN gave the US authorization to legally attack Iraq back in ???91.

It's funny that you should write this, seeing that the US attacked in 1990. As always, your quotes are after the fact.

Also, once the US went to battle, it was never the UN's, or anyone else's, place to tell them what to do. The US put American lives, and large sums of money, on the line. No one can command the US into battle and no one can command the US to stop. You can ask, but you can't demand.

 

[Decker]

678 has everything to do with making Iraq comply and nothing to do with be able to tell the US when it should, and should not, attack. Nice try though.

You're right and wrong. How does 678 make Iraq comply? By the UN member countries using"...Any Means Necessary..." to make it happen.

Being "civilized" had nothing to with stopping Manifest Destiny. It was simply the people of the time looking at the rest of the Americas and say "What the hell were we thinking? Who'd want that crap?" They already has the best that the Americas had to offer.

Manifest Destiny was not stopped. Manifest Destiny was the necessary move of the US population from the east coast to the west coast back in the 19th century. The period that Ben Cartwright helped bring law to the old west.

Are you serious? The Mafia had the semblance of being good for the people. Hitler had a semblance of being a man looking out for the people.

The UN only looks the part.

Right. Jettison all aspirations to creating a system of international law simply b/c the US doesn't want to finish the noble task it started in creating the UN b/c a bunch of crooks bullshitted their way into the whitehouse and started a war based on lies and deceptions.

Now that I see it in print, I understand your point of view.

It's funny that you should write this, seeing that the US attacked in 1990. As always, your quotes are after the fact.

You didn't even read the resolution did you? I accidentally typed 1991, but check the date of the resolution--1990--look at this too:
Recalling, and reaffirming its resolutions 660 (1990) of 2 August (1990), 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 662 (1990) of 9 August 1990, 664 (1990) of 18 August 1990, 665 (1990) of 25 August 1990, 666 (1990) of 13 September 1990, 667 (1990) of 16 September 1990, 669 (1990) of 24 September 1990, 670 (1990) of 25 September 1990, 674 (1990) of of 29 October 1990 and 677 (1990) of 28 November 1990

Also, once the US went to battle, it was never the UN's, or anyone else's, place to tell them what to do. The US put American lives, and large sums of money, on the line. No one can command the US into battle and no one can command the US to stop. You can ask, but you can't demand.

Are you even reading my posts anymore? reread my post and point out where I say that the UN told the US how to fight the war. The US asked the UN for permission to attack Iraq. That's a fact. It was up to the UN members (US included) to win the battle pursuant to the grant of authority and oversight of the UN security council. The UN sec. council also set the terms of the cease fire. Read resolution 687--which I linked--and it's obvious.

 

[DOMS]

You're right and wrong.

You're only half right. There is nothing in that resolution that stipulates that the UN can dictate the actions of the US military. None.

Manifest Destiny was not stopped.

Manifest Destiny was a doctrine of taking over all of the Americas, not just the present day US.

Jettison all aspirations to creating a system of international law simply b/c the US doesn't want to finish the noble task it started in creating the UN b/c a bunch of crooks bullshitted their way into the whitehouse and started a war based on lies and deceptions.

So, let me get this straight, you don't like the US government because it's full of crooks and thieves, but you like the UN, even though it's full of crooks and thieves.

The US didn't single-handedly create the UN. Also, the UN was created to replace the flawed League of Nations. The UN has failed to do most of the flaws that it was designed to. I get it though, you think that just because it's international body, that somehow it's better than the US. I mean, there's no way an international body could become corrupt and fail (*pssst*, League of Nations).

You're detached idealism is showing.

You didn't even read the resolution did you? I accidentally typed 1991,
<snipped for brevity>

And please point out which of those many resolutions stipulates that the UN can command the US when to stop fighting.

Are you even reading my posts anymore? reread my post and point out where I say that the UN told the US how to fight the war. The US asked the UN for permission to attack Iraq. That's a fact. It was up to the UN members (US included) to win the battle pursuant to the grant of authority and oversight of the UN security council. The UN sec. council also set the terms of the cease fire. Read resolution 687--which I linked--and it's obvious.

I read 678, and no where in it does it say that the UN can tell the US when to stop. It does tell Iraq to get out of Kuwait, tell Iraq what it can and can't do, mandates a bit of financial business regarding Iraq, and tell Iraq to play nicely when at war.

How does any of that apply to the US?

 

[Decker]

You're only half right. There is nothing in that resolution that stipulates that the UN can dictate the actions of the US military. None.

If you've read my responses, I am rather adamant about the assertion that the tactics for victory are left to the US. "any means necessary" means any means necessary and is the grant of authority from the UN to the member states to attack Iraq. That's it. I can't explain it any more plainly.

Manifest Destiny was a doctrine of taking over all of the Americas, not just the present day US.

19th century america is when and where the term Manifest Destiny was born--it was coined in the 1800s.

So, let me get this straight, you don't like the US government because it's full of crooks and thieves, but you like the UN, even though it's full of crooks and thieves.

Your little smiley faces are getting to me. You mischaracterize my position. The heroic in life is the reach for the goal, the ideal. We all fall short yet we try anyways. The US government is older and much more established than the international legal infrastructure of the UN. I expect more out of our government. I expect the UN to flesh out it's glaring problems. I expect both legal entities to aspire to maintain legal order and due process.

What's the alternative? I'll tell you. No law...might makes right. Remember this, life is fickle...today the US is on top. Tomorrow never knows. (JWL)

The US didn't single-handedly create the UN. Also, the UN was created to replace the flawed League of Nations. The UN has failed to do most of the flaws that it was designed to. I get it though, you think that just because it's international body, that somehow it's better than the US. I mean, there's no way an international body could become corrupt and fail (*pssst*, League of Nations).

You're detached idealism is showing.

The UN is not perfect, but it's the best international organ for law that we have at the moment. It is not better than the US b/c it is not like the US. The US is a member of the UN b/c somebody recognized that American law has limitations in dealing with foreign affairs. The UN was established to permit the finding of an international consensus on issues of keeping the peace.

And please point out which of those many resolutions stipulates that the UN can command the US when to stop fighting.

For the love of god DOMS, I've said repeatedly that the battle tactics are up to the US--"any means necessary"--but it's a matter of historical fact that the UN has set the terms of the cease fire with Res. 687--GW Bush predicated his whole push to war in 2002 on that resolution.

I read 678, and no where in it does it say that the UN can tell the US when to stop. It does tell Iraq to get out of Kuwait, tell Iraq what it can and can't do, mandates a bit of financial business regarding Iraq, and tell Iraq to play nicely when at war.

How does any of that apply to the US?

Look at my comments above...tactics--winning the war(battle by battle) is not the same thing as setting the terms for a cease fire.

 

[clemson357]

So Winston Churchhill, FDR and all of the presidents that followed were crackpots?

So it's to hell with the rule of law and any attempt at international law or diplomacy.

Can you see why that view is not even an option?

So you assert that every president since FDR believes that the US is subordinate to the UN? The United Nations is the supreme law of the earth?

 

[DOMS]

19th century america is when and where the term Manifest Destiny was born--it was coined in the 1800s.

Uh, yeah and? My point was that Manifest Destiny did stop prematurely. No one wanted South or Central America. Or Canada really.

Your little smiley faces are getting to me.

You don't say...

Just kidding! I'll stop. Or not.

You mischaracterize my position.

No I didn't. You're saying that the US should submit itself to the will of the UN. I'm saying that the UN politicians are no better than those in the US. Worse actually, because they're pushing their own countries agenda on the US.

The alternative isn't no law, it's self-governance. Each country abides by it's own laws.

For the love of god DOMS, I've said repeatedly that the battle tactics are up to the US--"any means necessary"--but it's a matter of historical fact that the UN has set the terms of the cease fire with Res. 687--GW Bush predicated his whole push to war in 2002 on that resolution.

That was just one of many things that Bush tried to use to validate the war. Big deal. He didn't need to. He simply should have said that he was finishing the war. Which he was. Also, keep in mind that the UN resolution was simply the paper version of the demands laid down by the US back in 1991. It's didn't set the conditions, it simply repeated them. The point being that the UN wasn't setting the terms, the US was. Then the US decided that after 10 years that the Iraqis weren't living up to their end.

 

[DOMS]

The United Nations is the supreme law of the earth?

What a horrible thought.

 

[maniclion]

No I didn't. You're saying that the US should submit itself to the will of the UN. I'm saying that the UN politicians are no better than those in the US. Worse actually, because they're pushing their own countries agenda on the US.

Are you implying that US politicians aren't busy trying to realize their own agendas? That they have the best interests of the people/nation they represent? I say that the UN is necessary as a checks and balances system on an international level and all members are responsible for keeping it's eye on the others in the group....

Have you never seen Mr. Smith Goes to Washington? Made in 1939, our government is just as if not more corrupt than it was portrayed in that movie...

 

[goandykid]

Uh, yeah and? My point was that Manifest Destiny did stop prematurely. No one wanted South or Central America. Or Canada really.

I want Canada.

 

[goandykid]

We can call it "New Michigan"

 

[DOMS]

Are you implying that US politicians aren't busy trying to realize their own agendas? That they have the best interests of the people/nation they represent?

I'd rather it be a corrupt politician from my country calling the shots rather than a corrupt politician from another country.

I say that the UN is necessary as a checks and balances system on an international level and all members are responsible for keeping it's eye on the others in the group....

You could say that, but you'd sound like a moron. You're just one of self-loathing types that's enamored with the word "international".

Have you never seen Mr. Smith Goes to Washington? Made in 1939, our government is just as if not more corrupt than it was portrayed in that movie...

Jimmie Stuart was incredible in that movie.

And I'm sure that an organization that has China on it's human rights council is just so-o-o-o much peachier than anyone else.

 

[brogers]

Didn't the founders of our country warn us about "Entangling Alliances" ...

 

[Decker]

So you assert that every president since FDR believes that the US is subordinate to the UN? The United Nations is the supreme law of the earth?

NO and No. The US is subordinate to the UN only when it wants to attack a country which did not attack the US. There is no supreme law of the earth....that does not compute. But there should be an entity in place to deal with conduct between countries, organizations etc.

 

[Decker]

....
No I didn't. You're saying that the US should submit itself to the will of the UN. I'm saying that the UN politicians are no better than those in the US. Worse actually, because they're pushing their own countries agenda on the US.

Corruption exists at all levels of all sorts of governing bodies. Since the US is a member of the UN and since the US wanted to attack a country that did not attack us, the only legal recourse available to the US was to attack Iraq pursuant to UN resolutions consistent with the UN charter.

The alternative isn't no law, it's self-governance. Each country abides by it's own laws.

Right. So let's abolish the federal government and let the individual states war w/ each other when a conflict arises and let the winner be the strongest state. No no, that's no good. There must be an established set of laws and an infrastructure that governs these conflicts and aims toward equitable resolution/solution.

That was just one of many things that Bush tried to use to validate the war. Big deal. He didn't need to. He simply should have said that he was finishing the war. Which he was. Also, keep in mind that the UN resolution was simply the paper version of the demands laid down by the US back in 1991. It's didn't set the conditions, it simply repeated them. The point being that the UN wasn't setting the terms, the US was. Then the US decided that after 10 years that the Iraqis weren't living up to their end.

Yes Bush needed to do that. The first Iraq war was authorized by the UN when Bush I and an Arab coalition asked the UN for authorization to defend Kuwait. GWB claimed that Res. 678 & 687 gave him the option of enforcing UN resolutions unilaterally. However, the resolutions do not permit that. So GWB acted to enforce Res. 1441. Res. 1441 did not permit the use of force (in enforcing the prior inspection resolutions) unless the UN convened and decided such with a new resolution.

That's not my spin. That is a matter of history. It is fact. If Bush could have acted unilaterally (w/out UN approval) don't you think he would have? He didn't b/c that would have opened him to obvious war crimes charges.