US soldier refuses to serve in â€˜illegal Iraq warâ€™

Tileman · #**201** (**permalink**) 05-21-2008, 12:36 AM

After those you can then search for many others that are explicite about military is possible but cannot be of IMMEDIATE use if Saddam does not comply.

areyoushittin'me? · #**202** (**permalink**) 05-21-2008, 01:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tileman

After those you can then search for many others that are explicite about military is possible but cannot be of IMMEDIATE use if Saddam does not comply.

I've looked over all of those and others...they are not explicit about the use of the military, in fact if you bother to look at them you will see that the later ones you listed are regarding the cease fire and the oil for food programme.

You are not understanding a very simple concept and why many of us feel that the UN is damn near worthless...that is that all of the early resolutions are relevant to Chapter VII of the UN Charter, particularly articles 39 through 42 which provide for a convienient loop that basically says nobody can do shit until the UN makes further evaluation which is basically what happened with resolution 678 which was what brought us to article 42 (something that 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677 did not do, they only brought up article 39 and 40)which allowed for the '91 war to drive Saddam's forces out of Kuwait...nothing more...we did that which brought us to resolution 686...the cease fire, and then the additional resolutions (687, 707, 715) that added definition for inspections and such.

When it was determined that things were a mess 986 was introduced to bring about the Oil For Food Programme...more definition was added with 1111, 1154, 1284, and 1382.

And then along came 1441 which defined the resumed inspection program.

They did not all authorize military force as you would like to have us believe.

CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS: Chapter VII

Quote:

CHAPTER VII
ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION

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

Article 39
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Article 40
In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures.

Article 41
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

Article 42
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

Amazed · #**203** (**permalink**) 05-21-2008, 09:00 AM

You are not understanding a very simple concept and why many of us feel that the UN is damn near worthless...that is that all of the early resolutions are relevant to Chapter VII of the UN Charter, particularly articles 39 through 42 which provide for a convienient loop that basically says nobody can do shit until the UN makes further evaluation which is basically what happened with resolution 678 which was what brought us to article 42 (something that 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677 did not do, they only brought up article 39 and 40)which allowed for the '91 war to drive Saddam's forces out of Kuwait...nothing more...we did that which brought us to resolution 686...the cease fire, and then the additional resolutions (687, 707, 715) that added definition for inspections and such.

Tileman, each Resolution led to the next, with the Final Resolution Authorizing the Force. In the Final Resolution they Cited the Non-Compliance of the prior Resolutions. ShitFor Brains will run in mental circles until you get exasperated. Keep him on track one factoid at a time. He will then call you names and ignore you.

areyoushittin'me? · #**204** (**permalink**) 05-21-2008, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amazed

Tileman, each Resolution led to the next, with the Final Resolution Authorizing the Force.

Thank you for making my point...maybe he will believe you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tileman

14 resolutions passed stating Military can be used as force against Iraq.

Edit to add: That was up until resolution 678 which authorized the first gulf war...the later resolutions involved the cease fire, inspections, and/or oil for food...they would have had to go back to reauthorize military action...something Bush was gonna try and do after 1441 and didn't because it was obvious France and Germany would not go along.

Amazed · #**205** (**permalink**) 05-21-2008, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by areyoushittin'me?

Thank you for making my point...maybe he will believe you.

Edit to add: That was up until resolution 678 which authorized the first gulf war...the later resolutions involved the cease fire, inspections, and/or oil for food...they would have had to go back to reauthorize military action...something Bush was gonna try and do after 1441 and didn't because it was obvious France and Germany would not go along.

Your point would only partly be right, becvause each one was a stepping stone.

areyoushittin'me? · #**206** (**permalink**) 05-21-2008, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amazed

Your point would only partly be right, becvause each one was a stepping stone.

No, my point is absolutely right...each was a stepping stone and did not state military force can be used as Tileman has claimed...they set up a procedure for making the next step that might possibly ultimately lead to such...big difference.

countryslim · #**207** (**permalink**) 05-21-2008, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jetblast

This is absolute simple-minded bullshit that is easily disproveable by anyone with even a basic understanding of the topic. The above is just the weak bs those who cooperate in government criminality assure themselves with because they aren't really interested in checking out the facts. These people are just as bad crooks as the main offenders. They, with the cooperation of our corrupted state media, just flat out ignore the full trail of evidence showing Bush had knowledge telling him this wasn't true and ignored it.

These sleazy Bush robots ask as to trust the worst president America ever had, with his record of power abuse and manipulation for rogue political interests, at his word.

Look at that simple-minded shit written above vs the real background and consider who supports Bush and why.

All this wisdom coming from a person who thinks a Quiter is a Hero?...

At no time in History has a Hero EVER Quit.... thats Impossible to acheive Hero status by giving up!

So your credibility is flawed by that definition, so is anything else you percieve.

Jetblast · #**208** (**permalink**) 05-21-2008, 03:41 PM

Quote:

So, in a nutshell, you ignore the evidence......

It's typical of a liberal to ignore evidence. Furthermore, let's switch roles now.

Again, it takes real balls to accuse the boogeymen ("liberals") of ignoring evidence when there is a hard beaten trail of evidence pointing to the lack of WMD's prior to his claims that Bush was aware of.

This shows the dubious nature of the right wingers in here and how they depend on falsehoods and corruption as the backbone of their arguments. These people are comfortable with criminality. In fact, they depend on it and promote it.

And don't forget these phony UN resolution quoters are working for the same people who called the UN "irrelevant" and went to war unilaterally.

ChrisXP · #**209** (**permalink**) 05-21-2008, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirtyp

On Thursday, he refused to go, saying he considers Iraq an illegal war.

“I stand before you today with the strength and clarity and resolve to declare to the military, my government and the world that this soldier will not be deploying to Iraq,” Chiroux said in the sun-filled rotunda of a congressional building in Washington.
US soldier refuses to serve in ‘illegal Iraq war’ | War On You

Off to Fort Leavenworth under hard labor.

He's not even proclaiming "conscientious objector" status. Worse, he's trying to get out of his duty because the chicken shit is too scared. Christ, women and moms are serving!

Have no problem with CO status if it's claimed before signing up (and in a national emergency, they will help in medicine or public works, to offset fighting), but that dude is pulling a fast one when his butt's on the line.

100 years ago, folks like him were shot as traitors.

Amazed · #**210** (**permalink**) 05-21-2008, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by areyoushittin'me?

No, my point is absolutely right...each was a stepping stone and did not state military force can be used as Tileman has claimed...they set up a procedure for making the next step that might possibly ultimately lead to such...big difference.

So you agree that the War is not "Illegal"...(and is not this much better than calling each other names?)...and that the Soldier has no real legal recourse but to honor his committment, or go to jail.