If you cannot understand that there are differences in language by the UN Security Council it is not because others do not understand.
No GST.. I FULLY understand the language. And I understand the context in which such language was formalized and the expected intent of non-compliance.
What you WILLFULLY choose to ignore is that with 660, US and coalition forces had not yet massed upon Kuwait and Iraq's border. There was also NO vote on the part of Congress authorizing use of force when 660 was issued. It took 6 months of preparations and a last minute vote to authorize military force by that body on January 12th, 1991(4 days prior to hostilities).
desert-storm.com
Clearly the use of force was LESS of an onus under 660 because no sanctions had yet been applied. And even when UNSC 678 was issued (all necessary means) in November, 1990, there had NOT YET been a US congressional resolution for US forces deployed to the region to be used (do to on-going political battle between Bush 1 and congressional democrats as to whether a declaration of war was required).
HOWEVER, in the case of 1441, the US congress HAD ALREADY ISSUED an authorization to use force prior to the UN resolution being issued referring to "serious consequences". All the "stars were aligned" toward inevitable military action when the UNSC passed 1441.
They, IN FACT, knew that if they passed that resolution the US would use military force should Saddam remain in material breach.
So maybe you should spend more time getting your history straight than trying to defend an indefensible position. Because THERE IS NO WAY to claim the UN didn't know the US was going to use force when they issued 1441.
usinfo.state.gov
Go back and read 1441 and pay attention to the reference to 687.
Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,
That means UNTIL Saddam had fulfilled his obligations under the cease-fire agreements to fully comply and satisfy the UN that it had accounted for ALL WMDs (not just destroyed them), that the "objective of restoring international peace and security", as declared in 678, would not be fulfilled.
And if 678 was not fulfilled, ALL NECESSARY MEANS could be used to obtain compliance with that binding resolution.
And if that isn't sufficient for you, then try and ignore this section:
Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance,
Of course, if you choose not to bother understanding plain English, you can always learn French.
Hawk |
