- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 10,320
- Reaction score
- 2,116
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Fantasea said:Nice job. Thanx for saving me the effort.
My pleasure.
Fantasea said:Nice job. Thanx for saving me the effort.
You are, without a doubt the biggest H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E- on this site. You have time and time again avoided answering questions challenging all the lies that you write, and you have the balls to take someone else to task!Fantasea said:No response to the question? I guess you know what that means.
Fantasea said:No response to the question? I guess you know what that means.
Pacridge said:I know what that means? You tell me that the UN did authorize the current Iraq. Then you didn't site any such resolutions to verify this fact. You know what that means? It means I've been spending my time trying to verify you're claim. I see some one else has posted some resolutions that demand Iraq comply to several UN resolution which it turns out they basically were complying with. Most of those resolution deal with disarming their WMD's. Turns out they did that. Those resolutions I was aware of, what I haven't been able to find is the resolution that authorizes the current war.
In the future I'll try to be sure to post a reply to your question every couple mins. to make sure you know I'm working on it.
26 X World Champs said:You are, without a doubt the biggest H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E- on this site. You have time and time again avoided answering questions challenging all the lies that you write, and you have the balls to take someone else to task!
One sick puppy.... :2mad:
Yap, yap, yap. :violin26 X World Champs said:You are, without a doubt the biggest H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E- on this site. You have time and time again avoided answering questions challenging all the lies that you write, and you have the balls to take someone else to task!
One sick puppy.... :2mad:
With all of the writings on the subject in this forum over the past several months I was certain that you were sufficiently well informed that I need not spoon feed you information which has been cited numerous times before.Pacridge said:I know what that means? You tell me that the UN did authorize the current Iraq. Then you didn't site any such resolutions to verify this fact. You know what that means? It means I've been spending my time trying to verify you're claim. I see some one else has posted some resolutions that demand Iraq comply to several UN resolution which it turns out they basically were complying with. Most of those resolution deal with disarming their WMD's. Turns out they did that. Those resolutions I was aware of, what I haven't been able to find is the resolution that authorizes the current war.
In the future I'll try to be sure to post a reply to your question every couple mins. to make sure you know I'm working on it.
ludahai said:Security Council Resolution 678
Operative Clause #2
2. Authorizes Member States... to use all necessary means...
Security Council Resolution 1441
First Preambulatory Clause
Recalling ... resolutions...
It is CLEAR that 678 and 1441 are classified as relevant resolutions and that 1441, as a resolution subsequent to 678, carries the authorization for force explicit in resolution 678.
2. Decides... to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations...
8. Decides... Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts...
13. Recalls... that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;
Simon W. Moon said:Baloney, hogwash and balderdash.
Things may be inferred from it. However, the entirety of the text should be used when doing so. Given the rest of the text, specifically operative clause 4, what is to happen if the final opportunity was not taken was that Iraq would be reported to the UINSC for "assessment."RightatNYU said:Wouldn't that clause imply that after the FINAL opportunity to comply with non-military measures was exhausted, something different would happen?
'Your book', being what it is may or may not be in line with what the UNSC assesses. They are two different things that may or may not have similarities or relevance to one another.RightatNYU said:Refusal of a UN resolution that threatens action would count in my book as a threat of a hostile act. Sort of like saying "If you don't do this, we're going to do something really bad." "Oh yea? Well I'm not doing it."
What you have quoted is in there to demonstrate that the problem is within the jurisdiction of the UN. It's merely part of the justification for taking the actions that the UNSC was taking by passing Resolution 1441. The preambulatory clause is merely justifying the resolution it's a part of.RightatNYU said:If the UN weren't a toothless organization, wouldn't this statement be taken as one of the strongest reminders possible of the threat of military action, in Diplomatic-speak?
If I read this correctly, you're assuming here that the UNSC members didn't really object to the US invasion of Iraq on any basis other than that they were bought. And you think that if not for the bribery the UNSC would've "rubbber-stamped" the US invasion. Is that correct?RightatNYU said:Which, if the SC had NOT been riddled with fraud and purchased votes, would have been nothing more than a rubber stamp for a US invasion.
Great! Please enlighten me.ludahai said:I am a Model United Nations instructor, and there are important fundamental differences between that and the real thing.
Doesn't seem to work this way around either.ludahai said:Resolution... operatives!
I would love to. Could you please provide me with some helpful information to use when choosing my research resources?ludahai said:Take your head out of MODEL United Nations and please look at the customs and operations of the real thing.
Simon W. Moon said:Things may be inferred from it. However, the entirety of the text should be used when doing so. Given the rest of the text, specifically operative clause 4, what is to happen if the final opportunity was not taken was that Iraq would be reported to the UINSC for "assessment."
Perhaps the UNSC uses a more finely tuned differentiation betwen types of possible actions than just military vs non-military.
Then I'd love to hear some suggestions for what the next step up in enforcement would be, beyond sanctions, no-fly zones, daily bombing, if NOT military.
'Your book', being what it is may or may not be in line with what the UNSC assesses. They are two different things that may or may not have similarities or relevance to one another.
How is shooting at US planes in no-fly zones not a hostile act? That alone should invalidate that clause immediately and activate whatever process the clause would have resulted in, even neglecting the fact that Saddam clearly chose to step over the line drawn in the oily sand.
What you have quoted is in there to demonstrate that the problem is within the jurisdiction of the UN. It's merely part of the justification for taking the actions that the UNSC was taking by passing Resolution 1441. The preambulatory clause is merely justifying the resolution it's a part of.
Also note that it is different from the language the UNSC used to authorizing military meaures- "Authorizes Member States... to use all necessary means..." Note that this language avoids the need for any inference on our part.
No, I would interpret that quote as having been in there to remind the member nations of the multiple violations of UN policy that Iraq has been responsible for, and to provide a foundation for a later resolution (which should have been made) which would build off that statement to create a framework for military action.
If I read this correctly, you're assuming here that the UNSC members didn't really object to the US invasion of Iraq on any basis other than that they were bought. And you think that if not for the bribery the UNSC would've "rubbber-stamped" the US invasion. Is that correct?
I don't know. And we never will, because the votes of two of the five members of the most powerful international council were bought and paid for with illegal Iraqi kickbacks. If these members were operating within the proper framework of their positions, who's to say?
The UN actions remind me of the lyric of a song popular in the "Roaring Twenties". Or is it the reverse? Can one ever tell?Simon W. Moon said:Baloney, hogwash and balderdash.
You have merely quoted a preambulatory clause as opposed to an operative clause. The preambulatory parts are the parts with all the pretty language that doesn't mean anything.
Note the difference bewteen the verbs. The one from the operative clause does something- it authorizes. The verb from the preambulatory clause just tells us something- the UNSC recalls.Operative Clauses call for a specific action. The action may be as vague as denunciation of a certain situation or a call for negotiations; or as specific as a call for a cease-fire or a monetary commitment for a particular project.In the preambulatory clauses, the UNSC remembered that they had passed a passel of resolutions previously, and then they enacted the operative clauses of the resolution.
Preambulatory Clauses show that there is a problem that needs to be solved. This may also mean demonstrating that the problem is within the jurisdiction of the UN.
These two purposes are fulfilled by referring to appropriate sections of the UN Charter, by citing precedents of UN action, or by citing previous resolutions or precedents of international law.
One of the operative clauses that were enacted discusses the actual "serious consequences" as a result of continued violations of obligations that is spelled out in operative clause #4- "failure by Iraq at any time to comply" will be reported to the UNSC "for assessment."
The entire text of the resolution may be viewed here. [more UNSC docs] Allow me to summarize the text of the operative clauses, the clauses that call for actions:A UNSC recollection in the flowery preambulatory clauses of Resolution 1441 does not make 1441 carry the authorization for force explicit in resolution 678. It would take an operative clause to enable 1441 to carry the authorization for force explicit in resolution 678. However, in the operative clauses we find what that failure to comply on Iraq's part will result in a report to the UNSC for assessment. 'Assessment' is not the sam things as an authorization "to use all necessary means."The UNSC:
1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991)...
2. Decides... to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations...
3. Decides... the Government of Iraq shall provide... a... declaration...
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 obligationsand will be reported to the Council for assessment...
5. Decides that Iraq shall provide... access... and instructs UNMOVIC and requests the IAEA to resume inspections no later than 45 days following...
6. Endorses the 8 October 2002 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq...
7. Decides... the Council hereby establishes the following revised or additional authorities...
8. Decides... Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts...
9. Requests the Secretary General immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution...
10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA...
11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council...
12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report...
13. Recalls... that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;
14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.
So, in short, you've presented a gross misreading of the document.
If someone else turned you on to this misreading you should consider whether they did so in error or if they had some intent to misinform you. In either case you should not trust them.
Simon W. Moon said:Great! Please enlighten me.
What are the differences between the preambulatory clauses as described and the preambulatory clauses of the real thing?" Please provide me with some external references so that I may educate myself.
Doesn't seem to work this way around either.
The authorization of force in 678 was re Resolution 660 and specifies "Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait."
I would love to. Could you please provide me with some helpful information to use when choosing my research resources?
RightatNYU said:Simon W. Moon said:I don't know. And we never will, because the votes of two of the five members of the most powerful international council were bought and paid for with illegal Iraqi kickbacks.
(In the voice of Marv Albert) Swish from behind the three point line.