|anyone actually read 1441?||DougSloan|
Mar 19, 2003 7:49 AM
|It's interesting. Don't read a secondary source, but all of the original: Security Council Resolution 1441 (pdf file)
It's very tough on Iraq, and states, in part:
"Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,..."
Word has it that France would veto 1441 if it were offered now.
One interpretation of 1441 is that the U.S. is already authorized to go to war by the U.N., and I don't think it's too strained an interpretation. Bottom line is that it says Iraq is in breach of prior Resolutions, and all member states are authorized to do whatever is necessary to enforce them, and to "restore international peace and security in the area..."
Mar 19, 2003 7:52 AM
|Problem with that link; try this:
Mar 19, 2003 8:01 AM
678 authorized member states to use all necessary means to restore peace and security in the area. Was that ever accomplished? 1441 says it was not. So...?
|Besides the point?||Dwayne Barry|
Mar 19, 2003 9:39 AM
|I don't think it would be too hard to argue that "peace and security" has reigned for the last 12 years. Was there any reason to think it wouldn't continue to do so?
But "legally" I think were O.K., to me it's a question of is the war in the best interest of our country? I don't think so.
I'm also quite turned off by the fact that the Bush administration doesn't seem willing to make an arguement based on National Interest that doesn't include exaggerated or often false statements. If it's in our national interest say so, say why, and let the people decide. Don't engage in hyperbole or out-right lies, and don't make up reasons that sound morally commendable, such as we're doing this to free the Iraqi people, when that simply isn't true.