The veterans argued that there were other U.N. resolutions that had never been implemented and asked if the United States would be willing to go to war to implement those resolutions as well.
Incredible... Just who are these "analysts"??
Don't they know the difference between Chapter 6 and Chapter 7 of the UN charter?? Chapter 7 resolutions are the ONLY BINDING resolutions, of which Iraq was the subject of 17 of them... SEVENTEEN BINDING RESOLUTIONS ALL IGNORED..
jcrc.org
(source used because it lists all previous Chapter VII target nations)
All of the Iraq resolutions include the phrase "Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter." Some also include the phrase “authorizes Member States … to use all necessary means” (i.e. the use of military force). For example, part of Security Council resolution 678 reads: "Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions, Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter, … Authorizes Member States … 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".
The other countries that, in the history of the UN, have been subjects of Chapter VII resolutions are: Afghanistan, Angola, Ethiopia and Eritrea, Haiti, Liberia, Libya, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe), Sudan and the former Yugoslavia. Of the above, sanctions have been lifted on Ethiopia and Eritrea, Haiti, South Africa, Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), Sudan and the former Yugoslavia. Sanctions on Libya have been suspended.
And returning to the article you cited:
"It is our view that an invasion of Iraq would ensure overflowing recruitment centers for terrorists into the indefinite future.
Uh-huh... and who's going to finance their operations??
There's an adage Karen, that many of our previous adversaries have stated about how to fight the US.. "Get in close so the Americans can't use their advantage in firepower"..
Well, I submit that, by forcing regime change in Iraq, impressing upon the region that this was a liberation, not an occupation, and Dedicating ourselves to seeing a continuing economic assistance presence over coming years, we're going to do the equivalent to Al-Qaeda... Get in close and remove THEIR advantage of being able to hide in the middle east and receive financing from their supporters there..
Al-Qaeda is financed by wealthy people and organized criminals who all have a stake in overthrowing the current political structures in the region. It's incumbent that the US play their part in altering the potential economic outcomes for the region.. Either that, or we need to pull completely out of the region and let the Europeans, Chinese, and Russians deal with it..
It is risky... that there is no doubt.. But the alternative is to just sit back and wait for the pot to "boil over" and try to contain the mess then AT HIGHER COST IN LIVES...
Everyone involved in the mid-east peace process has said the US needed to get involved in the Mid-East in a more active manner.. And that's just what we're doing... IMO...
And as soon as we've removed the greatest threats that Israel complains about, then we can apply the necessary pressure on both them and the Palestinians to quit fighting amongst one another and get along.
Hawk |
