• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

From 'Gook' to 'Raghead'

Fantasea said:
No response to the question? I guess you know what that means.
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:
 
Fantasea said:
No response to the question? I guess you know what that means.

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.
 
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.

Iraq was NOT in compliance with SC Res. 1441! Hans Blix reported that he was not receiving total compliance from Iraqi officials. That was a violation of the resolution!
 
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:

You have said before you don't call names. What about what LUDAHAI wrote? Do you still not want to read the U.N. Resolutions that authorized military action?

What about the statements on weapons of mass destruction made by President Clinton and Al Gore? All those Democrat and Republican Senators and Congressmen and Women. The members of both the Clinton and Bush Administrations. Still want to lay it all on President Bush. You may talk "sick puppy" but your bark isn't even near as good as other's bites.
:duel :cool:
 
This entire thread was started by a arguably falsified report designed to sell papers and evoke drama.Here is one that will not make the top of the front page anywhere.

Guantanamo guards tell of prisoner attack



"The detainee forced his hands up under the first guard's plexiglass face mask and began digging for the eyeball.
"He tried to insert one finger into my eye socket, then he transitioned into a fishhook maneuver," the guard said. "He got his finger into my mouth and was trying to rip my cheek off."
The entire incident was videotaped, as are all cell-extraction procedures under the tight protocol with which military officials have been running the Guantanamo prison amid scrutiny and harsh criticism from human rights advocates.
"It's an extreme slap in the face to me frankly that the American public is being led to believe that we're abusing, or mistreating detainees," said Col. Michael Bumgarner, the senior officer working inside the prison camp, which holds 585 enemy combatants held on suspicion of working for the Taliban and al Qaeda.
 
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. :violin

Read post #223. Should I have repeated it?
 
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.
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.

Evidently I was wrong. It appears that spoon feeding is still required.

I wish to thank several other respondents for performing that chore for me.
 
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.


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.

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.
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.

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:
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.
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."


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.
 
Just one question Simon:

2. Decides... to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations...

Wouldn't that clause imply that after the FINAL opportunity to comply with non-military measures was exhausted, something different would happen?

8. Decides... Iraq shall not take or threaten hostile acts...

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."
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;

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?

You're right that the matter should have been presented to the SC for assessment. 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.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Baloney, hogwash and balderdash.

You are the one who is mistaken. I find it amusing that you are citing from MODEL United Nations websites and not the real deal. I am a Model United Nations instructor, and there are important fundamental differences between that and the real thing.

As to the resolutions. Resolution 678 makes it clear that if Iraq violates any subsequent RELEVANT resolution, member states will have the option to resort to force. The Preambulatory clase in 1441 clearly links 1441 with 678. You can rant and rave all you want, but the fact that the link is made in the preambulatory clause makes it clear that 1441 is both as relevant as well as subsequent to 678. Hence, it is equally clear that the authorization of force in 678 extends to 1441. Connections of relevance are ALWAYS made in the preambs, and not in the operatives!

Take your head out of MODEL United Nations and please look at the customs and operations of the real thing.
 
RightatNYU said:
Wouldn't that clause imply that after the FINAL opportunity to comply with non-military measures was exhausted, something different would happen?
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.

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."
'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:
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?
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.

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.
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?
 
ludahai said:
I am a Model United Nations instructor, and there are important fundamental differences between that and the real thing.
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.

ludahai said:
Resolution... operatives!
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."

ludahai said:
Take your head out of MODEL United Nations and please look at the customs and operations of the real thing.
I would love to. Could you please provide me with some helpful information to use when choosing my research resources?
 
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?
 
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.

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.
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.

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:
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.
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."


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.
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?

Your lips tell me no! no! But there's yes! yes! in your eyes.
I've been missin' your kissin' Just because I wasn't wise.
I'll stop my scheming and dreaming, 'Cause I realize;
Your lips tell me no! no! But there's yes! yes! in your eyes.​
 
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?

678 clearly said that the authorization of force was for not only 678, but for any subsequent relevant resolution. Do you know what those words mean? The preambulatory in 1441 specifically identifies 678 as a relevant resolution. What can't you see here?

As for research? The best information is in something called BOOKS! Check your local library!
 
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.
 
UN 1441 and being shot at in "no-fly" zone are moot points now. With the recent admissions of Lieutenant-General Moseley at an airbase in Nebraska who said that the US flew over 20,000 sorties dropping 600 bombs on selected targets to provoke Hussein. ALL, under the cover of "no-fly" zone enforcement.

Combine that with DSM, and it is clear Bush is in a world of $hit! Because he started a war BEFORE a declaration from Congress. Which is against the law.

A fact, that from red-neck to hayseed-dickboy, has a hard time understanding.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom