No, we’ll never understand your asinine insistence upon holding to a lie like that. Whether or not we were right or wrong to go back into Iraq is a matter of opinion. Whether or not Iraq materially violated the terms of the cease-fire a few thousand times, thereby legally justifying a resumption of war is a matter of indisputable fact.
Whether the US was ‘right or wrong’ seems to depend on who is making the decision.
I would strongly disagree with your last sentence. I’ve done so before and said why.
So the UN is your sounding board on if the Cease fire was violated or not? Works for me.
Title: “Security Council Says Iraq Violating Cease-Fire Terms.” The Council has accepted the conclusions of the report of its Special Commission which was dispatched to Iraq to implement the terms of UN resolutions requiring the destruction of ballistic missile-related equipment and development programs but was refused cooperation. (920301)
Date: 19920301
Text:
*SUF702
03/01/92
SECURITY COUNCIL SAYS IRAQ VIOLATING CEASE-FIRE TERMS (Transcript: 2/28 Statement) (600) United Nations—The following is the text of a February 28 Presidential statement issued by the U.N. Security Council concerning the refusal of Iraq to abide by the cease-fire terms of the Gulf War.
(BEGIN TEXT) The members of the Security Council express their gratitude to the Secretary-General for the report submitted to the Council on 27 February 1992 (S/23643), transmitting the results of the special mission dispatched to Iraq by the Secretary-General pursuant to the statement of the President of the Council of 19 February 1992 (S/23609). The members of the Council approve in full the conclusions of the special mission as contained in the report and in particular its finding that Iraq is not prepared to give its unconditional agreement to implement all of its obligations under resolutions 687 (1991), 707 (1991) and 715 (1991).
The members of the Council deplore and condemn the failure of the Government of Iraq to provide the special mission with full, final and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 707 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres, including launchers, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes; and the failure of Iraq to comply with the plans for ongoing monitoring and verification (S/22871/Rev.1 and S/22872/Rev.1 and Corr.1) approved by resolution 715 (1991). In a statement made on 19 February 1992 prior to the dispatch of the special mission to Iraq the Council noted that Iraq’s behaviour constituted a material breach of the resolution 687 (1991). Regrettably this continues to be the case.
Furthermore, the members of the Council equally deplore and condemn Iraq’s failure, within the time prescribed by the Special Commission at the request of Iraq, to commence destruction of ballistic missile-related equipment designated for destruction by the Special Commission. The members of the Council reaffirm that it is for the Special Commission alone to determine which items must be destroyed under paragraph 9 of resolution 687 (1991). Therefore, the Government of Iraq’s letter of 28 February 1992 to the Executive Chairman of the Special Commission is unacceptable. Iraq’s refusal to implement the determinations of the Special Commission constitutes a further material breach of the relevant provisions of resolution 687 (1991).
The members of the Council demand that Iraq immediately implement all its obligations under Council resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions on Iraq. The members of the Council require the Government of Iraq to communicate directly to the Council without further delay an authoritive and unconditional acknowledgement of its agreement to accept and implement the above noted obligations, including specifically to comply with the determination of the Special Commission requiring the destruction of ballistic missile-related equipment. The members of the Council emphasize that Iraq must be aware of the serious consequences of continued material breaches of resolution 687 (1991).
The members of the Council note that an Iraqi delegation is prepared to come to New York as soon as it is invited to do so. The members of the Council have asked its President to extend such an invitation to the delegation to come to New York without further delay. The members of the Council intend in any event to continue their consideration of this question no later than the week beginning 9 March 1992.
I can understand that. Iraq had disregarded UN resolutions though.
If they never enforce anything, do they actually have legitimacy?
In the eyes of the World, maybe.
In the eyes of the Iraqi, I don’t know.
In the eyes of the average Darfurian, probably not.
Sorry, CM, but the UN has totally squandered what you refer to as its “legitimacy”. The list of specific instances of UN cravenness, avarice and criminal acts is way too long to detail here. It was a desperate hope born in a desperate time, but it is little more than a pathetic shadow of what it could have been. About the only thing about the UN that functions with any degree of competence is WHO. Otherwise, the UN is little more than a gaggle of preening third world peacocks trying to convince themselves and each other how magnificent they are.
As opposed to what? You offer nothing except violence, which hasn’t done anyone any good lately.
See how you chastise us alone for being nothing but violent. Of course our violence is wholly misplaced, even inferior to that of the common Iraqi, who sometimes has no other recourse than to express his displeasure at this inferior violence introduced to his country by the US by, say dousing an Iraqi kid with gas and torching it - regretfully so, I’m sure.
I’m also wondering whether “legitimacy” is measured as a continuum or a binary value? What is a “small amount” of legitimacy, and how do you compare the legitimacy of two entities on a certain topic?
And what are you supposed to do when a group of the decision makers in this “legitimate” organization, and even quite a few in the organization itself are being bought and paid off by the nation in question?
Oh and I think African nations consider the UN legitimate. A legitimate threat to its pre-teen girls.
So the UN is your sounding board on if the Cease fire was violated or not? Works for me.
And me too. I assumed the reference to the violation was about firing in the NFZs.
Obviously the next question is: who has the authority and legitimacy to take things to the next step?
Regarding the UN: Does it have legitimacy from a democratic perspective? That is, are it’s members elected by the people they represent?
I would agree that the level of legitimacy that the UN enjoys is in large part determined by answers to questions like that.
There needs to be some balance between encouraging all nations to join, but providing more incentives/positions/power to nations that are free.
Regarding Westley Clark: Minimal force? In a war??? Really?!? What would Colin Powell say?
What is your opinion?
Was it a ‘war’ after Saddam fell?
Isn’t ‘minimal force’ when acting as Occupiers a sensible idea?
I can understand that. Iraq had disregarded UN resolutions though.
If they never enforce anything, do they actually have legitimacy?
I haven’t seen anyone put forward a compelling case that they “never enforce anything”. It would be interesting to see a study of the percentage of resolutions that require enforcement, and then number that are then enforced.
But I agree, that is another aspect that goes to their legitimacy.
What I guess I’m trying to get at is that if you go through them to get action, you gain significantly more legitimacy because the UN is answerable to the action. It is the UN taking the action, not the individual, or posse, of nations.
In the eyes of the World, maybe.
In the eyes of the Iraqi, I don’t know.
The Iraqi’s may feel that the UN was right not to authorise war. What has happened might justify their belief that it wasn’t ‘last resort’ time.
In the eyes of the average Darfurian, probably not.
Probably not, no. I think more should be made in the media about that, and particularly China’s role. Not as newsworthy though, China not caring about human rights. It should be though.
To be completely honest I don’t believe there are easy answers here.
Sorry, CM, but the UN has totally squandered what you refer to as its “legitimacy”.
To you as an individual maybe, and to others who agree with your opinion, but I’m not sure that translates to a global majority. Or anywhere even close.
And remember there is significantly more to the UN than what you see in the news every so often (which is usually when something is done that isn’t in the US’s interests). I would guess that the only things you hear about are negative. How about the hundreds of thousands (I don’t know the figure) that rely on the UN for food to survive? Do those people believe the legitimacy of the UN has been compromised? Or would they just be thankful for being alive, and not question whether the food was legitimate or not.
The list of specific instances of UN cravenness, avarice and criminal acts is way too long to detail here.
Indeed, it would make sad reading.
It was a desperate hope born in a desperate time, but it is little more than a pathetic shadow of what it could have been. About the only thing about the UN that functions with any degree of competence is WHO. Otherwise, the UN is little more than a gaggle of preening third world peacocks trying to convince themselves and each other how magnificent they are.
Obviously I disagree - it was an excellent idea. I get the idea that the footage of the UN that you see is mostly Chavez or someone similar grandstanding to the General Assembly.
How about those people that they keep alive via the World Food Program? There are many other functions to the UN that we never hear about. Are you really prepared to write them off because of the bad stuff that you hear about?
See how you chastise us alone for being nothing but violent.
I said you. I didn’t say the US. Making shit up again. Where are your non-violent alternatives sunshine?
Of course our violence is wholly misplaced, even inferior to that of the common Iraqi, who sometimes has no other recourse than to express his displeasure at this inferior violence introduced to his country by the US by, say dousing an Iraqi kid with gas and torching it - regretfully so, I’m sure.
Making shit up again. You’ve got some kind of compulsive liar thing going on.
I’m also wondering whether “legitimacy” is measured as a continuum or a binary value? What is a “small amount” of legitimacy, and how do you compare the legitimacy of two entities on a certain topic?
The whole concept of legitimacy is interesting and important (well I think so at least).
I think you’ve got to look at each case/example on it’s own merits. Who has the ability to carry out action whereby people will see it as a legitimate use of power? I would say the people that are directly affected by the action to the highest degree are the people that need to see the greatest level of legitimacy in those carrying it out. Would you agree?
And what are you supposed to do when a group of the decision makers in this “legitimate” organization, and even quite a few in the organization itself are being bought and paid off by the nation in question?
Well I think we can agree that all sides are subject to being bought off. The answers are probably in how you structure the system: enlarging the number of UNSC members, increasing the number of vetos required to stop something. If you make it harder to alter the final outcome, then the ability to influence through the back-door is presumably more difficult.
Oh and I think African nations consider the UN legitimate. A legitimate threat to its pre-teen girls.
Nice. However I think more Africans are probably kept alive by the WFP and WHO than have been fiddled with. By a rather large factor. And you gotta also factor in that the UN is only going to be as good as its members. Ultimately both the UN and the nations of those who commit crimes wearing UN colours should have the responsiblity for dealing with it.
So there we have it (AGAIN): Even though the press focuses almost solely on its faults, all of which are ultimately justifible - i.e. made legit - by the noble deeds it perpretrates, the UN is saving lives any which way it can. End of story. This is the way all people and all nations should interact with and support each other, never with war, much less harsh words.
And all the UN does is utilize peaceful resolutions, spending rich nations’ money as they see fit on food/clothing/shelter You know, maybe even buy some Achmed somewhere an otebook so he can write poetry. And it works. You don’t see it on TV, but it works so well that many delegates at the UN have free time and money to regularly rent (formerly) AIDs-free whores in NYC.
Hey, Sudan is in the news today over their wanting to kill an English school teacher who insulted Allah by letting her school kids name a class mascot teddy bear “Mohammed” Hey isn’t Darfur down there somewhere? Darfur is one such region transformed by the UNs diligence :
There are many casualty estimates, most concurring on a range within the hundreds of thousands. The United Nations (UN) estimates that the conflict has left as many as 450,000 dead from violence and disease.[4] Most non-governmental organizations use 200,000 to more than 400,000; the latter is a figure from the Coalition for International Justice that has since been cited by the UN. Sudan’s government claims that over 9,000 people have been killed, although this figure is seen as grossly underestimated.[5][6] As many as 2.5 million are thought to have been displaced as of October 2006. [7] (See Counting deaths section, below)
The Sudanese government has suppressed information by jailing and killing witnesses since 2004 and tampered with evidence such as mass graves to eliminate their forensic values.[8][9][10] In addition, by obstructing and arresting journalists, the Sudanese government has been able to obscure much of what has gone on.[11][12][13][14] The mass media once described the conflict as both “ethnic cleansing” and “genocide,” and now do so without hesitation. The United States government has described it as genocide,[15] although the UN has declined to do so. (See List of declarations of genocide in Darfur) In March 2007 the U.N. mission accused Sudan’s government of orchestrating and taking part in “gross violations” in Darfur and called for urgent international action to protect civilians there.
UN: We need to throw more money at it so it can all fall peacefully into place, thus causing them “gross violations” to ebb.
Probably cost me $50 in taxes to get educated on this wonderful story. I’m so glad I could contirbute.
Nah. Looks to me like the Sudanese have all they need, and are in the best company among themselves. The dollar only defiles, says Chavez.
There are many other functions to the UN that we never hear about. Are you really prepared to write them off because of the bad stuff that you hear about?
So list us a few of them, and/or provide a link. Oh, silly me, the KKKonglom-owned media won’t write about them; even the Internet is since biased and censored in their favor.
Talk about making shit up.
Your rote recital singing the UN’s praises makes you think you’re one of them, you know, the good poeple. I maintain its not enough to advertise your nobility:
Sir—Bono’s bizarre predicament was on embarrassing display in Cork last Friday when he sought to defend the decision to move the most profitable part of U2’s business out of Ireland to avoid tax after participating in a meeting about tackling world hunger. Mind you, it was more like the theatre of the absurd as the “anti-poverty campaigner” emerged from a meeting of Ireland’s Hunger Task Force to face journalists’ questions about off-shore tax avoidance, when such activities on a global basis have such a devastating effect on the lives of the world’s poor.
Indeed, would millions be dying every year of hunger and preventable diseases if tax havens used by the very rich, including Bono and U2, did not exist? The Tax Justice Network has estimated that the amount of funds held by wealthy individuals in tax havens could generate a staggering $255 billion dollars in additional tax revenue annually—enough alone to finance the Millennium Development Goals—which range from halving extreme poverty to halting the spread of HIV/AIDS and providing universal primary education by 2015. That raises a very important question: will the Task Force of which Bono is now a member address how tax havens undermine efforts to fund the life-saving needs of the world’s poorest people in preventing hunger?
More specifically, how hundreds of billions are siphoned out of government coffers every year by very rich individuals and multi-national companies using tax havens to avoid tax?
This is especially serious in Africa, where the African Union has estimated that as much as $150bn is lost every year through this form of fiscal abuse—three times what it receives in aid!
These questions are not presented here as clever debating points. We are entitled to know if the Hunger Task Force will address the fiscal side of the equation in addressing world hunger—the very real difficulties governments have, in both rich and poor countries, in raising tax revenue to help the poor.
Lies, lies, lies, alll fabricated.
Product Red, the brand co-founded by U2 frontman Bono, has raised $50m (£24m) to fight Aids in Africa since it was launched in January 2006.
Armani, Motorola and Apple are among those to join the scheme, donating part of sales to the Global Fund against Aids, Malaria and Tuberculosis.
While private sector contribution has been boosted by the brand, the number of firms signing up remains limited.
In Africa more than 33 million people are living with HIV/Aids.
Okay, Bonos $50mio / 33mio peeps = $1.50 per AIDs sufferer, 1.5 days wage in many an African country. Thats one tenth of what Emporio Armani RED Wraparound Sunglasses “worn by Bono” cost - that is, when he’s not wearing Bulgari sunglasses @ $300 ea.
biafra says: “Save the whales.”
Cool. I raised more whale awareness at Moorewatch than anyone else all year. Means I’m a good person. I’m making a difference, eh.
Sorry, I remain wholly unimpressed by the UN and sundry individuals posing as the masses lecturing on the virtues of lecturing the masses.
“I think the surge is working but that’s only one element. It’s working because of the increase in troops,” he said, “but the thing that has to happen is that the Iraqis have to do this themselves...”
Sounds an awful lot like Bush, doesn’t it? Hasn’t he and the Republicans been saying for quite a long time that the surge would work but Iraq has to do this for themselves?
One of the most outspoken critics now acknowledges there is progress thanks to the surge. So, uh, Bush was right, right?
To go along with the piece about Grand Ayatollah al Sistani I posted back on Page 8, here is an article I found while browsing through Instapundit: (Yes, surfing the net beats working any day of the week.)
Since it does come from the New York Times, I wouldn’t accept it as 100% legit. On the other hand, though, I’d really like to believe this is really happening, and if the Nigerians can find a “gentler, kinder” form of Shariah, maybe they can start exporting it. Shariah as interpreted in this article is something I could actually find palatable. I’m certainly not going to convert to Islam because of it, nor do I want to have it as the law of the US, but I’d be very happy if this Nigerian model became the Muslim norm rather than a rare, rare exception.
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN)—Sunni lawmakers walked out of Iraq’s parliament Saturday, protesting what they called the house arrest of a prominent Sunni politician.
Troops reportedly went to the house of parliamentarian and Sunni bloc leader Adnan al-Dulaimi, two days after Iraqi and coalition troops found a car bomb outside his office compound, a member of parliament told CNN.
“The Iraqi government said that the security forces are there to protect al-Dulaimi’s house, but now the Iraqi army is saying that al-Dulaimi is under house arrest,” said Nada Mohammed Ibrahim, a member of parliament and the Sunni secular bloc, Iraqi National Dialogue Front.
Ibrahim said security forces were banning al-Dulaimi and daughter Asmaa Adnan al-Dulaimi from leaving their house.
“This could happen to any ... member in the future, and this is not right,” Ibrahim said.
Meanwhile, al Qaeda in Iraq insurgents killed at least 10 people and wounded 10 others in a Diyala province village Saturday morning, a Baquba police official said.
The official said residents of Adwaila—home to both Sunni and Shiite Iraqis—have opposed al Qaeda, making their town a target for attack.
The insurgents launched mortars into the area and then sent in dozens of fighters with small arms to storm the village, the official said. At least five houses were burned, he said.
Adwaila is about 25 miles northeast of the provincial capital Baquba, which lies 35 miles north of Baghdad.
In other violence, car bombs killed two people and wounded 10 Saturday in and around Baghdad, Iraq, an Interior Ministry official said.
One of the bombs exploded in southeastern Baghdad, killing a civilian and wounding four others, the official said. The bomb detonated in the Moasker al-Rashid area of the Iraqi capital around 9 a.m.
The other car bomb exploded around 11 a.m. in Madaen, killing a civilian and wounding six, the official said
Regarding the UN: Does it have legitimacy from a democratic perspective? That is, are it’s members elected by the people they represent?
I would agree that the level of legitimacy that the UN enjoys is in large part determined by answers to questions like that.
There needs to be some balance between encouraging all nations to join, but providing more incentives/positions/power to nations that are free.
I was referring to the question of whether the UN itself is democratic. Granted, its members vote on the issues at hand, but how many of those members are elected versus appointed? If the UN is supposed to become a governing body, when can I expect to vote on my representative? On the secretary-general? If I never get to, does it have the legitimacy necessary to govern?
But your idea brings up questions of its own. How do you encourage dictatorships to join an organization whose philosophy is in direct contradiction of the dictators’? What is their incentive to join if the lack of freedom they manifest is the rationale to marginalize their representative power? Knowing that free countries are almost guaranteed to join and remain out of solidarity with the cause, what incentives might the governing body resort to if it is determined to get dictatorships to join as well? Should representation be allocated by country or by population? If by country, it’s difficult to argue that such a body represents “the people”, yet if by population, China and India alone almost have the majority share. What do the incentives of a large totalitarian state like China become when they see that controlling another country would increase their representation within the international body?
These questions are why Americans are generally such sticklers about national sovereignty. We don’t intend to enter into any agreements whereby the third-world governments with no respect for human rights end up with more power than us.
Regarding Westley Clark: Minimal force? In a war??? Really?!? What would Colin Powell say?
What is your opinion?
Was it a ‘war’ after Saddam fell?
Isn’t ‘minimal force’ when acting as Occupiers a sensible idea?
Since Clark was referring to the legitimacy of the war itself, I don’t think the question of “after Saddam fell” applies.
I believe that the philosophy of using only the minimum force in conflict serves only to prolong that conflict. In this way, it could very well end up less humane than the use of descisive force. This is especially so with today’s technology where we don’t need to carpet-bomb a city to guarantee destruction of a target. The idea isn’t to give the enemy a fighting chance...it’s to remove that fighting chance.
If Clark had meant that we didn’t send enough forces (i.e., we sent less than the minimum necessary), he would find agreement almost all around. But if he thinks we sent too many forces, and that’s how I read that phrase, I think he’s almost alone in that thinking, aside from those who thought we should have sent zero forces.
One interesting quote from the same article was this:
“We went to war on legally sufficient grounds both nationally and internationally,” Clark explained. “The problem was legitimacy.” U.S. actions struck at the heart of the “just-war theory,” which is codified in international law and which seeks to restrict the destructiveness of war, protect the innocent and inhibit the use or threat of war as instruments by nation states, he said.
So Clark seems to think the Iraq war was legal, but not legitimate. It never occurred to me that there was a difference. What do you think?
I’m also wondering whether “legitimacy” is measured as a continuum or a binary value? What is a “small amount” of legitimacy, and how do you compare the legitimacy of two entities on a certain topic?
The whole concept of legitimacy is interesting and important (well I think so at least).
I think you’ve got to look at each case/example on it’s own merits. Who has the ability to carry out action whereby people will see it as a legitimate use of power? I would say the people that are directly affected by the action to the highest degree are the people that need to see the greatest level of legitimacy in those carrying it out. Would you agree?
And yet the people most affected by an action like the Iraq war are often those with no representation in the system—those oppressed by the dictator. Awfully sucky.
But my question is really about what it means to have “more” or “less” legitimacy. I’m inclined to belive that an entity either has legitimacy regarding a decision or doesn’t. Partial legitimacy only serves to make the difficult questions even more ambiguous. Now, I’m willing to grant that a decision that is not legitimate is not necessarily morally wrong. It was just made by an entity that wasn’t recognized as the necessary authority. Legitimacy and morality are two different dimensions, aren’t they?
I was referring to the question of whether the UN itself is democratic. Granted, its members vote on the issues at hand, but how many of those members are elected versus appointed? If the UN is supposed to become a governing body, when can I expect to vote on my representative? On the secretary-general? If I never get to, does it have the legitimacy necessary to govern?
I guess as your government appoints your representative, you are denied that opportunity. In some vague way you can vote for a government knowing what kind of person they’ll send to the UN (e.g. Vote Bush, get someone like Bolton). You can also presumably petition your UN representative in terms of what they should do there on behalf of your nation.
But your idea brings up questions of its own. How do you encourage dictatorships to join an organization whose philosophy is in direct contradiction of the dictators’? What is their incentive to join if the lack of freedom they manifest is the rationale to marginalize their representative power? Knowing that free countries are almost guaranteed to join and remain out of solidarity with the cause, what incentives might the governing body resort to if it is determined to get dictatorships to join as well?
I guess the encouragement for dicatatorships is that they get a small say in what happens in the world, but can also defend themselves if they are the subject of possible intervention. If they are not within the UN structure, then how are they able to respond? It would create more or an us versus them situation. I would favour suspending nations from the UN for a time, if they are seen to be carrying out acts such as genecide. But again there is that difficult line between keeping them engaged and chipping away to try and get them to open up and become democratic, and pushing them away and further from the ideals that the rest of us share. Not easy.
But I don’t think any additional incentives are required to get non-democratic states into the UN. I think being a member is a privilege in its own right and has definite benefits that even those states want.
Should representation be allocated by country or by population? If by country, it’s difficult to argue that such a body represents “the people”, yet if by population, China and India alone almost have the majority share. What do the incentives of a large totalitarian state like China become when they see that controlling another country would increase their representation within the international body?
I think it would be dangerous to do it by population. The UN is based on a fundamental respect for the nation state, even though that carries some definite disadvantages. So each nation state has one vote. So in that sense, no, the UN doesn’t represent ‘the people
