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

Amazed · #**251** (**permalink**) 05-21-2008, 06:37 PM

...and there it is

A. Crowley · #**252** (**permalink**) 05-21-2008, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amazed

...and there it is

What?

You enlisted?

noneof yourbusiness · #**253** (**permalink**) 05-21-2008, 06:45 PM

Article 1:
The Purposes of the United Nations are:
To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
Article 2, paragraph 4
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
Article 33
The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.
The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means.
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.

noneof yourbusiness · #**254** (**permalink**) 05-21-2008, 06:46 PM

thats twice now

Amazed · #**255** (**permalink**) 05-21-2008, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noneof yourbusiness

thats twice now

see 678 above, they "authorized" any means.

But they still have no authority above our Constitution, and we do not need their "permission" for anything.

areyoushittin'me? · #**256** (**permalink**) 05-21-2008, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TakuanSoho

Here you are.

http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/s...2/res1441e.pdf

One can argue that it didn't "authorize" it, just as one can argue that Senate did not "authorize" it, but in the end, both certainly provided a legal argument for it that would not have existed had they not passed it.

There is nothing in any of the resolutions that provide for the removal of Saddam...try reading them.

As to 1441 which you have linked to is primarily relative to renewed inspections...it contains the usual gobblygook but the meat of it relative to our discussion is...

Quote:

4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted
by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with,
and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a
further material breach of Iraq’s obligations and will be reported to the Council for
assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;

11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General
of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with
inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament
obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;
12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance
with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, 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;
13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that
it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its
obligations;

YES...there is an argument made for war but in the normal relative incompetance of the UN they did not authorize war with this resolution, they merely called for further discussion of what "serious consequences" might have to be dealt.

A. Crowley · #**257** (**permalink**) 05-21-2008, 06:52 PM

If Obama deciders to attack Iran because it refuses to prove that it never had a plan to develop Nukular Weapons and the UN disagrees, what then?

Amazed · #**258** (**permalink**) 05-21-2008, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TakuanSoho

Actually the UN did authorize the US. Remember the whole talk about the second resolution? Here's a news flash, that wasn't needed. France lost big time on that.

2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;

Security Council resolution 678 (1990) on the situation between Iraq and Kuwait

Yes they did.

Amazed · #**259** (**permalink**) 05-21-2008, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. Crowley

If Obama deciders to attack Iran because it refuses to prove that it never had a plan to develop Nukular Weapons and the UN disagrees, what then?

The recent inspection find in the private home of a scientist of a box of some 3,000 pages of documents, much of it relating to the laser enrichment of uranium support a concern that has long existed that documents might be distributed to the homes of private individuals. ...we cannot help but think that the case might not be isolated and that such placements of documents is deliberate to make discovery difficult and to seek to shield documents by placing them in private homes."

Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector
Addressing the UN Security Council
January 27, 2003

Freedom Agenda - Quotes and Facts on Iraq

UN News Centre - News Focus

Too late.

areyoushittin'me? · #**260** (**permalink**) 05-21-2008, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amazed

2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;

Security Council resolution 678 (1990) on the situation between Iraq and Kuwait

I will await the requisite "Nuh-Uh".

No "Nuh-Uh"...instead...I provide you with the wording of resolution 660

Quote:

RESOLUTION 660 (1990)

Adopted by the Security Council at its 2932nd meeting, on 2 August 1990
The Security Council,

Alarmed by the invasion of Kuwait on 2 August 1990 by the military forces of Iraq,

Determining that there exists a breach of international peace and security as regards the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait,

Acting under Articles 39 and 40 of the Charter of the United Nations,

1. Condemns the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait;

2. Demands that Iraq withdraw immediately and unconditionally all s its forces to the positions in which they were located on 1 August 1990;r

3. Calls upon Iraq and Kuwait to begin immediately intensive negotiations for the resolution of their differences and supports all efforts in this regard, and especially those of the League of Arab States;

4. Decides to meet again as necessary to consider further steps with to ensure compliance with the present resolution.

You show me where 660 authorizes the invasion of Iraq.

As I've said repeatedly...the UN resolutions prior to 678 were regarding removing Saddam's forces from Kuwait...that we did and just as Bush Sr. and Brent Scowcroft stated...

"Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish."

Go figure.