Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The US signed onto SCR 1441 and the reneged on the obligation when:
"The government of Iraq decided not to avail itself of its final opportunity under Resolution 1441 and has clearly committed additional violations," Negroponte said.
Without following the terms of that agreement.
U.S. Cites 1991 U.N. Cease-Fire Resolution as the Legal Basis for Its Invasion - Los Angeles Times
Regardless of the "Final Oportunity", it clearly states that Iraq is in MATERIAL BREECH OF ITS OBLIGATIONS. Being offered a "final opportunity" does NOT change that FACT!.
Of course UNSC Resolution 1441 states that Iraq is in material breach of its obligations. That is why 1441 was passed. I am not arguing that Iraq was not in material breach of its obligations in resolutions passed prior to 1441.
I am pointing out the error you made on 07-12-2014 at 02:28 PM when you claimed that, "1441 already says that SADDAM is in material breech and in violation of resolution 1441 itself."
Besides being wrong your claim makes absolutely no sense. Why have 1441 at all? The purpose of 1441 was to give SH an opportunity to comply with all his obligations so as to avoid war.
If you still think 1441 says what you claimed on 07-12-2014 at 02:28 PM, you ought to post it.
The US signed onto SCR 1441 and the reneged on the obligation when:
"The government of Iraq decided not to avail itself of its final opportunity under Resolution 1441 and has clearly committed additional violations," Negroponte said.
Without following the terms of that agreement.
U.S. Cites 1991 U.N. Cease-Fire Resolution as the Legal Basis for Its Invasion - Los Angeles Times
Two points:
(1) Negroponte did not nor does not speak for the UNSC. He speaks only for the US Government when he was an ambassador.
(2) Will you explain what 'reneged' means to those here that are arguing that 1441 authorized the use of force against Iraq by the US and UK in March 2003 instead of continued UN inspections.
Its up to Saddam to resolve the issues and bring about compliance in total and full with every aspect of all 17 UN Security Council Resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules.
Where does 1441 invoke Chapter VII?
"[Owen Bennett-Jones] (Q): Do you think that the resolution that was passed on Iraq before the war did actually give legal authority to do what was done?
Kofi Annan (A): Well, I'm one of those who believe that there should have been a second resolution because the Security Council indicated that if Iraq did not comply there will be consequences. But then it was up to the Security Council to approve or determine what those consequences should be.
Q: So you don't think there was legal authority for the war?
A: I have stated clearly that it was not in conformity with the Security Council - with the UN Charter.
Q: It was illegal?
A: Yes, if you wish.
Q: It was illegal?
A: Yes, I have indicated it is not in conformity with the UN Charter, from our point of view and from the Charter point of view it was illegal."
Sep. 16, 2004 - Kofi Annan, MS
At this point, the US Administration asserted that Iraq remained in material breach of the UN Resolutions, and that, under 1441, this meant the Security Council had to convene immediately "in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security".
IT SERVES NO LEGAL PURPOSE THOUGH BECAUSE THE USE OF FORCE WAS ALREADY AUTHORIZED LONG AGO! Its about politics and recruiting support, NOT international law.
Its up to Saddam to resolve the issues and bring about compliance in total and full with every aspect of all 17 UN Security Council Resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules.
Where does 1441 invoke Chapter VII?
Resolutions do not invoke Chapter rules, they are passed under Chapter Rules. For example the many resolutions passed against Israel by the UN over the past few decades were passed under Chapter VI rules which do not allow the use of military force to bring about enforcement. Every Resolution passed against Iraq since 1990 was passed under Chapter VII rules which do allow the use of military force to enforce the resolutions.
The US does not need UN authorization to invade Iraq.
That is true. I agree 100%. What is your point?
The 54% majority of Americans did not need to know the difference between Sunni and Shiite to know that Bush had no business invading Iraq without UN authorization.
You have a funny way of agreeing.
1441 is simply a restatement of Saddam's violations an the authority of the international community to use military force to bring him into compliance.
1441 is simply a restatement of Saddam's violations an the authority of the international community to use military force to bring him into compliance.
That makes no sense whatsoever. There was no need to restate the obvious conditions of Saddam Hussein's violations. No one disputed that Saddam was in violation and that a U.S. President could 'enforce' UN Security Council Resolutions if non-compliance with those resolutions posed a genuine threat or a humanitarian crisis that justified military action.
Not making sense is one thing. But the second part of your statement is just plain wrong. 1441 did not authorize the international community to use military force as you claim.
You wrote on 07-14-2014 at 02:19 PM, "Its up to Saddam to resolve the issues and bring about compliance in total and full with every aspect of all 17 UN Security Council Resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules."
On the same day at 04:04 PM I asked you, "Where does 1441 invoke Chapter VII?"
You quickly replied at 04:32 PM, "Every Resolution passed against Iraq since 1990 was passed under Chapter VII rules which do allow the use of military force to enforce the resolutions."
You are wrong, as Contumacious pointed out today at 014 06:25 PM, "The United States Ambassador to the United Nations, 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 history of Iraq did not start in 2003..
The history of Iraq did not start in 2003..
That is true and I have never argued that it did.
In fact I have argued that Bush was right to confront Saddam Hussein's threat of being in violation of international law in 2001 up until the time UN inspectors were back into Iraq disarming Iraq peacefully with a satisfactory level of Iraq's cooperation.
Here it is:
On 07-11-2014 at 07:39 AM U2Edge wrote, "In February 2001, 7 months before the 9/11 attacks. Gallup polling company had a poll where it asked Americans if they supported using US military force to remove Saddam from power. 52% in the poll, a clear majority said YES ."
Four hours later at 11:43 AM I replied, "In 2001 I would have said yes to using military force against Iraq because SH was in violation of international law by not allowing UN inspectors in."
So does that sound like I am a far left hack that does not deviate from far left programming? Where do you come up with your stuff?
Oh my the far left will just ignore any history that does not fit with in their programmed talking points or propaganda.
In June 2006, the National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC), a US Department of Defense entity, released a report detailing the weapons of mass destruction that had been found in Iraq, including pre-1991 sarin gas and mustard agent. The report stated that, "While agents degrade over time, chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal."[14]
The Bush administration commissioned the Iraq Survey Group to determine whether in fact any WMD existed in Iraq. After a year and half of meticulously combing through the country, the administrations own inspectors reported:[15]
"While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdads desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered."
The review was conducted by Charles A. Duelfer and the Iraq Survey Group. In October 2004, Bush said of Duelfers analysis:[16] "The chief weapons inspector, Charles Duelfer, has now issued a comprehensive report that confirms the earlier conclusion of David Kay that Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there."
You have a funny way of agreeing.
On 07-14-2014 at 01:13 PM You wrote, "The US does not need UN authorization to invade Iraq."
In response on 07-14-2014 at 03:54 PM I wrote, "That is true. I agree 100%. What is your point?"
Then on 07-14-2014 at 06:37 PM you wrote, that what I wrote on 07-14-2014 at 05:58 AM was "a funny way of agreeing."
Can you explain why you think this .... "The 54% majority of Americans did not need to know the difference between Sunni and Shiite to know that Bush had no business invading Iraq without UN authorization." .... Is a disagreement with this .... "The US does not need UN authorization to invade Iraq."?
The facts are that Bush invaded Iraq without UN authorization. And the well accepted conclusion by the majority of Americans and people in the world is that Bush had no business invading Iraq without UN authorization.
I will state both again. The US did not need UN authorization to invade Iraq and Bush had absolutely no business invading Iraq without it.
Do you actually have a point?
The US signed onto SCR 1441 and the reneged on the obligation when:
"The government of Iraq decided not to avail itself of its final opportunity under Resolution 1441 and has clearly committed additional violations," Negroponte said.
Without following the terms of that agreement.
U.S. Cites 1991 U.N. Cease-Fire Resolution as the Legal Basis for Its Invasion - Los Angeles Times
Two points:
(1) Negroponte did not nor does not speak for the UNSC. He speaks only for the US Government when he was an ambassador.
(2) Will you explain what 'reneged' means to those here that are arguing that 1441 authorized the use of force against Iraq by the US and UK in March 2003 instead of continued UN inspections.
My point is that Bush had numerous valid reasons to invade Iraq based on intelligence from the CIA and other allied intelligence agencies.
I stated that he did not need UN authorization, but my reading of Res 1441 says he did have authorization.
After months of trying to roally international support for a war and a two-day ultimatum demanding that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein step down, the United States attacked Iraq on March 19, 2003. The goal, U.S. President George W. Bush said in a speech, was "to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger."
Experts disagree as to whether the war was legal under international law. Under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, to which the United States is a party, a nation's use of force is authorized under only two circumstances: in individual or collective self-defense, as outlined in Article 51, or pursuant to a Security Council resolution, as outlined in Article 42.
Self Defense
Since it was not directly attacked by Iraq the United States did not have an obvious right to self-defense. The administration, though, argued that it had a right to defend itself preemptively against a future possible attack.
