What utter crappola. The US and its poodle the UK government, dissed the UN which said DO NOT INVADE.
Actually, the UNSC voted OVERWHEMINGLY to declare Iraq in material breach of the cease fire and THREATENED SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES (leaving exactly what those serious consequences would entail up to the UN membership). This is the SAME LANGUAGE that was used in UNSC 1154, passed in March, 1998, that the basis for Clintion's "Operation: Desert Fox" in December, 1998).
No further vote by the UNSC was required for Clinton to elect to use military force to apply the "severest consequences" related to that operation either.
Whereas despite clear agreement on the part of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein with United Nations General Kofi Annan to grant access to all sites, and fully cooperate with UNSCOM, and the adoption on March 2, 1998, of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1154, warning that any violation of the agreement with Annan would have the `severest consequences' for Iraq, Iraq has continued to actively conceal weapons and weapons programs, provide misinformation and otherwise deny UNSCOM inspectors access;
What France, Russia, and Germany (THE GOVERNMENTS OF WHICH WERE TRYING TO SHIELD THEIR BUSINESS INTERESTS WITH SADDAM'S REGIME) did was an attempt to TWIST the UNSC into an organization that would DICTATE that military action HAD TO BE carried out against Iraq...
But they way they went about it was to try and create the belief that ONLY the UNSC COULD ORDER (not just authorize) the use of force, when NOTHING in the UN Charter gives it that authority AND PRECEDENT CLEARLY DOES NOT SUPPORT THAT AUTHORITY.
Now listen you moron:
When 1441 was passed, it cited a previous UNSC resolution (678) which LIFTED THE PROHIBITION against Military Force (but DID NOT dictate or order nations to use Military Force against Iraq) back in 1991. UNSC 1441 cited 678 because it was an ADDITIONAL RESOLUTION to the former, not a completely new one that stood on its own. It ALSO cited UNSC 1154, the resolution upon which Operation: Desert Fox was launched (again.. without any additional vote on the part of the UNSC).
And THUS, just as the UNSC did not have the power to dictate the means by which a UN member state opted to fulfill the purpose of the binding resolution in 1991, it did not have the power to dictate to member states that they had to use military means to enforce 1441.
fas.org
All the UNSC has the power to do is lift the prohibition against use of military force and that was achieved in both 678 and 1441.
Furthermore, there was NOTHING in the language of 1441 that dictated another UNSC vote was required before member states decided what "serious consequences" they opted to inflict upon Iraq in order to achieve compliance of the resolution.
Now I know you're pretty thick-skulled, but even a moron like you should know that giving the UNSC the authority to ORDER members states to use military force against another country is equivalent to giving them the power of Global Government.
Because NO DECISION is more serious than when a nation decides to go to war, or use military force, and it's MORONIC to give an international body the right to tell your country that it must wage war.
And this is why the UNSC is relegated to lifting prohibitions against the application of military force in pursuit of enforcing it's resolutions. It provides member states THE OPTION, BUT NOT THE OBLIGATION, to use force.
France, Russia, and Germany attempted to turn the UNSC into a world government with the power to dictate when countries must go to war.
It also dissed the UN by pulling out the inspectors who had achieved the destruction of 95%+ ....by the mid 1990s.
Iraq announced in August, 1998 that it would no longer cooperate with UNSCOM, and then OFFICIALLY TERMINATED all contacts in October, 1998. Without cooperation by Iraq, then there was nothing for them to do.. And when Clinton opted to use military force, it was prudent to request the UN to remove the inspectors from the country.
Now read UNSC 1205, which was issued just a few weeks PRIOR to Clinton's launching of Operation: Desert Fox:
state.gov
Note that NOTHING in that resolution specifically stated that Clinton (or anyone else) were directed to use military force to enforce compliance.
Thus, there was NOTHING that was required for Bush to be authorized to overthrow Saddam, if necessary, in order to enforce those resolutions.
Case closed..
Yeah.. and you can thank the "globalists" in France and Germany for trying to create a world government that would protect their corrupt business and political interests.
Hawk |
