To the satisfaction of whom??? The UNSC did NOT back the invasion of Iraq.
Let's see.. what does the "UN" in UNSCOM/UNMOVIC stand for?
You know, don't you? Or do I have to define that for you?
And what does "Material Breach" mean? Material Breach of exactly WHAT??
Might it be the agreement outlines in UNSC 687, outlining the terms by which a cease-fire would be established in the aftermath of Saddam's NAKED AGGRESSION against Kuwait?
And what else can "Severe Consequences" signify when there are ALREADY HEAVY SANCTIONS IN PLACE AGAINST IRAQ??
These terms contained in the language of UNSC 1441, the context of which revealed the utter futility of the UNSC imposed sanctions policies.
And not only did the US get that resolution passed, but it passed UNANIMOUSLY.
Furthermore, UNSC 1441 was not necessary, in legal international terms. Every previous resolution cited UNSC 678 and 687 as well which effectively meant that "all necessary means", including the use of force, were authorized to force compliance with their enforcement.
That the UNSC could not muster the spine to actually take the step of drawing a line in the sand and saying "Iraq.. we declare you in material breach of the cease-fire" previous to UNSC 1441 does not matter in legal terms.
No one specifically mandated that military force be used to extricate Iraq from its occupation of Kuwait. The means of enforcing that resolution was left to the individual members of the UN willing to carry out that enforcement.
Finally, it was France and Russis that did not back the overthrow of Saddam, for reasons later discovered in the Oil For Food scandal.
I wish I could detail how many documents we discovered in Iraq that detailed the connections that Saddam's government had with France and Russia.. the corruption involved.. the individuals who were being bought and paid for to assist Iraq is getting sanction lifted.
And this information would ONLY BE REVEALED AFTER HIS OVERTHROW.
And we did not unilaterally invade Iraq, any more than we unilaterally ousted Saddam from Kuwait. Desert Storm was carried by some 30 participating nations.
en.wikipedia.org
Operation Iraqi Freedom was officially sanctioned by 49 members who participated to some degree:
en.wikipedia.org
And in both cases, the majority of troops involved were US.
So, once again, your facts are just plain wrong. The war was not unilateral, just because France and Russia didn't desire to see their secret illegal dealings unveiled.
Just because you think you can spout such lies and propaganda doesn't mean it's true.
And it doesn't change the facts.. I know.. I worked with Brits, Aussies, Koreans.. and I saw Japanese, Norwegian, El Savadoran, Macedonian, Rumanians, and any number of coalition members while I was there.
Hawk |
