Wait...did Iraq sign the cease fire? Did the cease fire agreement include the no-fly zone? You're telling me that we need UN's sanction on the cease fire agreement now? If Iraq did not agree, why didn't it protest to the UN BEFORE signing
We actively participated in WW2 when we were "neutral." We shot at, and killed the members of German military BEFORE Germany declared war on us. Roosevelt lied us into the war. We entered the war under false pretenses.
So your information is better than the leading intelligence agencies of the world. Tell me, what is North Korea's capability? How about Iran? How far are they along? How much of a threat are they? Maybe we should put you as head of world intelligence.
Al Queda showed the world that you don't need ICBMs to strike at America. Do you want to take a chance of even the remotest possibility that AQ might get an unconventional weapon and launch it in America?
If anything, we know Saddam did not follow logic in his actions. He invaded Kuwait. No one thought he would do that. Did you know he's going to to that? He gassed his own people. He invaded Iran. He was a loose cannon, unlike the Soviet Union which we could predict with fair accuracy.
Resolution 1441
How final is final? Is final opportunity the last resort? Or is it just before? What is the last resort? Usually military action is the last resort, unless it's the last last resort, a resort after last.
The Council passed resolution 1441 on November 12, 2002, but it provided no new authorization for using force. It states in paragraph 12 that a meeting of the Security Council will be the first step upon a report by inspectors that Iraq obstructed their activities. Russia, France and China have all stated they understood resolution 1441 permitted no automatic use of force. Subsequently, in fact, members of the Council were unwilling to adopt a proposed resolution that would authorize force to enforce Iraqi disarmament. Resolution 1441 states affirmatively that in the event of a material breach by Iraq of its obligations to cooperate, serious consequences would follow. But, again, the resolution does not say what serious consequences would follow. Nor did it provide any right of unilateral US/UK enforcement.
The argument in the March 20 US letter to the Security Council that Iraq's failure to fulfill its obligations under resolution 687 resulted in the termination of that resolution is also problematic. Analogizing to multilateral treaties, the argument is that a material breach of the obligations terminated the formal cease-fire in resolution 687 and returned the parties to the pre-ceasefire legal situation, specifically the situation created by resolution 678. Resolution 678 allowed the use of "all necessary means," including, presumably, taking the defense of Kuwait to Baghdad and ending the regime of Saddam Hussein.
Scholars raise at least three problems with this argument: first, resolutions are not treaties and do not automatically terminate upon material breach. Second, the argument that resolution 687 lapsed and resolution 678 revived is inconsistent with the legal position staked out by the US and UK for the last 12 years, and, third, resolution 678 never authorized the forcible change of Iraq's regime in the first place.
The argument in the March 20 US letter to the Security Council that Iraq's failure to fulfill its obligations under resolution 687 resulted in the termination of that resolution is also problematic. Analogizing to multilateral treaties, the argument is that a material breach of the obligations terminated the formal cease-fire in resolution 687 and returned the parties to the pre-ceasefire legal situation, specifically the situation created by resolution 678. Resolution 678 allowed the use of "all necessary means," including, presumably, taking the defense of Kuwait to Baghdad and ending the regime of Saddam Hussein.
Scholars raise at least three problems with this argument: first, resolutions are not treaties and do not automatically terminate upon material breach. Second, the argument that resolution 687 lapsed and resolution 678 revived is inconsistent with the legal position staked out by the US and UK for the last 12 years, and, third, resolution 678 never authorized the forcible change of Iraq's regime in the first place.
ASIL Insights: Armed Force in Iraq, addendum
http://www.asil.org/taskforce/oconnell.pdf
There are SO MANY stupendously bad assertions being made here that it would take me all night to demolish them, not due to their reasoning, which is execrable, but just the sheer numbers of really awfully poorly-made points.
Comment