And that's why there were sanctions and a no fly zone.. Sanctions, not invasion. Recall that these bozos couldn't even go back to the UN to get a resolution to use force.
WR, there is NO requirement to obtain, AND THERE HAS NEVER BEEN issued, an authorization to use military force from the UNSC.
Write this down, memorize it, and never forget it.
The UNSC's does NOT have the right to commit the armed forces of its sovereign members to the enforcement if its binding resolutions.
Or another way of putting it:
The UNSC has the authority to LIFT THE PROHIBITIONS AGAINST USE OF FORCE BY MEMBER NATIONS, BUT CANNOT REQUIRE THEM TO COMMIT FORCES ON ITS BEHALF.
Is that pretty clear now? Do you disagree? Can you document where I'm factually incorrect on any of the above?
Didn't think so... So let's on.
The language contained in UNSC 678 stated that "all necessary means" were authorized to evict Iraq from Kuwait and restore regional peace and stability.
Read that again WR, because that's the language that is used as "authority". All it states is that members can use ALL NECESSARY MEANS.. It does not mandate use of military force.. All it does is no longer prohibit use of military force.
Now.. if you look at nearly all, if not all, subsequent resolutions pertaining to Iraq, you will see that UNSC 678 is cited as resolution of precedence upon which the later resolutions in question are pertinent to.
Thus, it is IMPLICT, IF NOT OBVIOUS, that if you cite a previous UNSC resolution that lifted the prohibition to use military force, you no longer are required to use such language again.
But there was NEVER any understanding that somehow the language of "all necessary means" to restore peace and stability to the region no longer included the use of military force.
And the fact that we were bombing Iraqi air defense installations throughout the Clinton and preceding the actual overthrow of Saddam, suggest that UNSC 678 was still in place because we were, and HAD BEEN, utilizing military force such as the "no-fly" zone you mentioned.
Thus, when UNSC 1441, citing UNSC 678, declared Iraq to be in material breach of the cease-fire, AND COMBINED WITH THE FACT THAT THE US CONGRESS HAD ALREADY GIVEN BUSH AUTHORIZATION TO USE FORCE, no one could realistically claim that there was a requirement for another resolution specifically authorizing the use of force to overthrow Saddam.
Especially when such an authorization would have been an UNPRECEDENTED usurping of the rights of sovereign nations to decide when, where, and why to deploy their military forces.
And I apologize if I sounded condescending WR.. It's just that this line of BS about the UN authorizing use of force has been spread so thick that someone has to turn it into compost.
Hawk |
