UN Resolution

[Gawain 0]

Quote

...but no, seems like it's just you and me being happy about good news.

I'm happy about the news too, but it still does not lessen my poor opinion of the UN.

The ceremonial factor is what counts here. Countries which want to offer help, yet feel the UN resolution is required to provide legitimacy to any action they may take. That is not leadership. That is being part of the herd.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[tinfoil 0]

Quote

As far as the news, between work, the baseball game, a church dinner, and postwhoring, I haven't listened to the news tonight.

hehe, that's funny

“- - Sumo is the greatest of sports. It has power, grace, speed and cluture. And most importantly, two fat bastards smacking the shit out of each other. ”

[SkydiverRick 0]

And I hadn't read the article or heard the news, and not every scum-sucking stupid left-wing liberal comments on every thread.


Wendy W.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Do you have any idea what this resolution is about? It sets out the principle that the administration of Iraq is returned to the prople of Iraq as soon as possible and makes it possible for countries (as a legal basis) to give aid so that Iraq can rebuid the infrastructure that was destroyed during the war. What an amazing triumph fro the Bush administration . Just shows in what deep shit the US is in in Iraq after the war when something like this need to be celebrated as a "triumph".

The UN cannot legitimize or delegitimize anything. The UN is not a legislative body. It is a cooperative.

This resolution saves more face for the opponents of the war than it does for the US. France, Germany and Russia acknowledged that they weren't getting everything they wanted on this resolution. That having been said, why would they give in now? It wasn't the USAs image they were worried about...we can all accept that.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Squeak 17]

Quote

Hey Mikkey, simmer down nah...

THere you go with your worldly advice now, and just trying to make good news a very political one.

Your hatred for the US is quite noticeable, Michele and I are just happy that finally most have agreed on the need for Iraqi people to take charge of their lives.

You on the other hand, talk about blunders of Bush, but you forgot totally the blunders of the same nations (France, Germany and Russia), that have been 1000 times more disruptive than this outcome. At least the outcome seems to be that the Security council, will finally help out in giving Iraq to the Iraqis....Just mellow out dude.

Dude you really dont have a clue do you.
Mikey's post was not heated, he was simply stating that the UN resolution is not to be seen as a political victory for the Bush Administration, but more as a resolution to get the US troops out and re-establish Iraqi independant governance. Which then allows the doors open for more foreign aide

You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?

[juanesky 0]

And what part of good news don't you understand?

All that Michele was implying and I was sarcastic was about the same precise things, we both were happy that all in the security council agreed for something good, and just wondered why people like you and Mikkey did'n even bother to post such great news, and then you just came in and made a sarcasm a reality

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[mikkey 0]

Quote

The UN cannot legitimize or delegitimize anything.

This is actually an interesting thing to debate. The UN actually can. In order to act within international law you need to have the approval of the UN in most cases. That is why we had that discussion if a "second" UN resolution was necessary before the war.
Example: If you start a war without approval of the UN Security Council, you are an "aggressor" that breaks international law and can be tried in front of a war crime tribunal and the UN will subject your country to sanctions.

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

The UN cannot legitimize or delegitimize anything.

This is actually an interesting thing to debate. The UN actually can. In order to act within international law you need to have the approval of the UN in most cases. That is why we had that discussion if a "second" UN resolution was necessary before the war.
Example: If you start a war without approval of the UN Security Council, you are an "aggressor" that breaks international law and can be tried in front of a war crime tribunal and the UN will subject your country to sanctions.

Alas, the UN lacks the muster or credibility for that to be a reality. Otherwise the issues facing the Korean penninsula, the Balkans, and Iraq would not have transpired the way they have.

I am not a lawyer, so I can't speak to "international" law per se, but my understanding was that the international courts were not an apparatus of the UN.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[SkydiverRick 0]

Example: If you start a war without approval of the UN Security Council, you are an "aggressor" that breaks international law and can be tried in front of a war crime tribunal and the UN will subject your country to sanctions.

[juanesky 0]

And Britain, and Spain, but, hey, the US is the body snatchers, and they are in total control, remote that is.

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[mikkey 0]

Quote

Alas, the UN lacks the muster or credibility for that to be a reality. Otherwise the issues facing the Korean penninsula, the Balkans, and Iraq would not have transpired the way they have.

I am not a lawyer, so I can't speak to "international" law per se, but my understanding was that the international courts were not an apparatus of the UN.

I am not a specialist in this either and have no time to research it right now. However, take your examples and you will see that UN "authorisation" has played a central role:
1) Korea. The Korean war was sanctioned by the UN because NK attacked SK. McArthur was actually commander of the combined UN forces.
2) Balkans: Serbia was condemned by the UN for aggression against the other federation states and later Kosovo. Serbia was first hit by sanctions, later military (Kosovo) and the then leader of Serbia Milosovic (spelling?) is now in jail in The Haag and in front of the war crimes tribunal.
3) The first Gulf war was clearly sanctioned by the UN based on Iraq's aggression against Kuwait. One of the reasons that Bush senior "stopped" before he reached Baghdad was that the UN resolution only sanctioned the liberation of Kuwait, not the occupation of Iraq. The reason that the UK and US were so keen to get a second resolution before the latest war was to ensure not to get in trouble with international law. However, most international law experts agree that this was not really necessary due to earlier resolutions still in force.

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[mikkey 0]

Quote

Example: If you start a war without approval of the UN Security Council, you are an "aggressor" that breaks international law and can be tried in front of a war crime tribunal and the UN will subject your country to sanctions.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I believe that Austrailia has troops in Iraq. That makes them aggressors too.

You never have your facts right do you? There was a discussion if the existing UN resolutions were basis enough and the UK and US tried to get one more resolution "clearly" authorising the war. They did not achieve this, but most international law experts say that the existing resolutions were legal foundation enough. These resolutions clearly threatened military force if Iraq did not comply.
Legally the "coalition" is not an aggressor in Iraq according to international law. Politically the coalition is however unfortunately "seen" to be an aggressor by especially Muslim countries who did not find the justification strong enough and do suspect hidden agendas other then WMD's and terrorism.

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

take your examples and you will see that UN "authorisation" has played a central role:
1) Korea. The Korean war was sanctioned by the UN because NK attacked SK. McArthur was actually commander of the combined UN forces.

The force make up was 300,000 US; 14,000 UK; 6,000 Canada; 5,000 Turkey; 2,000 Australia. US forces were already in South Korea also. The UN role was important at the time because it was the first major role they played after WWII.

Quote

2) Balkans: Serbia was condemned by the UN for aggression against the other federation states and later Kosovo. Serbia was first hit by sanctions, later military (Kosovo) and the then leader of Serbia Milosovic (spelling?) is now in jail in The Haag and in front of the war crimes tribunal.

UN action came only after unilateral action by the United States and subsequent NATO coverage. This was the first major blow to the UNs credibility IMO. While the Tribunal is a UN court, International Law or legislation is not written by the UN, nor is that part of their charter.

Quote

3) The first Gulf war was clearly sanctioned by the UN based on Iraq's aggression against Kuwait. One of the reasons that Bush senior "stopped" before he reached Baghdad was that the UN resolution only sanctioned the liberation of Kuwait, not the occupation of Iraq. The reason that the UK and US were so keen to get a second resolution before the latest war was to ensure not to get in trouble with international law. However, most international law experts agree that this was not really necessary due to earlier resolutions still in force.

The concern was not international law, it was diplomatic containment. As you cite, an 18th resolution was not necessary. The UN at this point has become a mockery. A wounded political body that appoints the greatest tyranical regimes in charge of Human Rights commissions and disarmament initiatives.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[kiltboy 0]

Hi Michelle,

I'd seen this earlier but I was getting tired o fthe political threads (things seemed to have calmed down here politically wise and didn't feel like bringing it back up again) and was trying to shift my focus to baseball instead.
But Grady Little ruined October baseball so here I am.

It is good news and it gives recognition that Iraq is in need of help from the International Community. It encourages nations to contribute but several of the nations that voted for the resolution have said they will not provide troops or money regardless of the resolution that they just voted for.

There's also a story on an Iraqi cop on the BBC webpage. It shows them working with the US militrary police and gives a little insight into how the cops are changing and being separate from the military.

David

[kallend 2,026]

I fail to get Michele's point.

The Bush administration has been badmouthing the UN for months. Why do they now care enough to work so hard for this resolution?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

I fail to get Michele's point.

The Bush administration has been badmouthing the UN for months. Why do they now care enough to work so hard for this resolution?

This was not meant for the US to save face. The content of the resolution wasn't what France, Germany and Russia wanted. Yet, still, they hopped on board. Syria will follow the herd anyway. This was not for the US. This was for UN and/or the previous opponents during the last debates over Iraq. France, Germany and Russia didn't vote yes to save face for the US.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[kiltboy 0]

I wouldn't say they've hopped on board as they are not sending troops or pledging cash. Syria has an out to not get involved as it's a neighbouring nation to Iraq.

I think the resolution was more for Iraq and a realisation that Iraq needs international help to be rebuilt. I believe Colin Powell said words to that effect after the resolution was adopted.

David

[Gawain 0]

Overall, I agree with your assessment, but Bush said the same thing too.

France had made it known, shortly after Bush's speech to the UN what they wanted (which was in direct conflict with the original US draft). Fine, that was likely expected. Yet, in the face of virtually no concession by the US, France didn't put up a fight (politically speaking) and we didn't hear anything from Germany and a maybe a few mumbles from Russia.

There's no doubt that international involvement in rebuilding Iraq is a far more stable element than the US going it alone. Sure, our image rarely glows in positive light amongst the world, but you'd be hard pressed to say the France held the "best interests" based on its own past with the middle east and Africa. So, the argument that "it's all for Iraq" seems off to me too. There's a WIIFM factor we can't yet see.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[kiltboy 0]

I think the French position was excessive by declaring a one month timetable. That I believe was nowhere near realistic.
As for not putting up a fight I think had the resolution "required" and not "encouraged" contributions then there would have been more noise. It could be a case of "we'll let this pass so we can say we never stood in the way if things get better" but not commit to anything until we see what the situation is further down the line and things get worse.

Again the WIIFM is big as it always is.

David

[turtlespeed 220]

now that sounds like the french we all know and love.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[kiltboy 0]

I will have to add that it was not the French alone that had several contributions to the adopted resolution. Germany and Russia were also not satisfied with the initial resolution and reworked it. While the actions of France have been the subject of much debate here they were not alone in their opposition and so I think they're taking a bit more flack than they deserve. Was the threat of veto wrong prior to the conflict? That decision has been made and the consequences have been shown.
I would like to believe that the UN can move on past that debate (this resolution is a step in that direction) and that the suggestions of member countries be taken on merit without sliding into old wounds.

just 2 cents.

David

Edit Though I can appreciate some of the humour in a post

[juanesky 0]

Quote

now that sounds like the french we all know and love.

Mais, oui Monsieur

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon