(S888Wheel) wrote in message ...


"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...

(Yawn)

There werea multitude of reasons to go to war.
First among them was no compliance with terms for
our ceasing conflict in the first one.


Those terms were set by the U.N. and it was up to the U.N. to
determine
if
the
violation of those terms was cause for military action. It is not OK
for
the
U.S. or any other nation to unilaterally decide that a U.N.
resolution
has
been
violated and take military action based on said U.N. resolution.

Uh, no

No what? The terms of the U.N. resolutions were not set by the U.N.?
It is not up to the U.N. to determine whether or not the violation of
U.N.
resolutions are grounds for military action?
Or no to the notion that it is not O.K. for the U.S. or any other
nation
to
unilaterally decide that a U.N. resolution has been violated and take
military
action based on said U.N. resolution?

Being that there are five permananet members of the security council, and
that being they are among the most powerful countries in the world, and
being that they often don't get on well with eachother and have numerous
competeing interests, it is nearly impossible to get a unanimous vote.
Any
one member could stop enforcement of a UN resolution, thus making such
resolutions just a bunch of hot air, that need not be respected and carry
little weight. Besides, dealing with completeing the end of the 1991 war
is a US matter, as well as smacking them for targeting and shooting
at our aircraft.


How do any of these facts and opinions of yours conflict with my claims?
It was
my claims to which you said "Uh,no."

Our policy interests are not bound by the UN nor its resolutions
It was amatter of our sovereignty. That is why I reject your premise




My claim does not include the idea that our policies are bound by the U.N.
resloutions. My claim is that the enforcement of U.N. reslotutions is bound by
the U.N. resolutions.

You seem to be implying that the action in Iraq was taken solely on
the basis of enforcing U.N. resolutions. That was just one plank in
the case to go to war.
Personally, I think a humanitarian case to remove the regime which
would lead to a lifting of sanctions against Iraq was sufficient.
Unfortunately, the UN was deadlocked and the coalition was forced to
act without it's blessing.
Check the post vote 1441 statement by the US.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...1108usstat.htm

It says we would bring the matter back to the U.N. (which we did with
the resolution proposed in March '03). It also says, "If the Security
Council fails to act decisively in the event of a further Iraqi
violation, this resolution does not constrain any member state from
acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq, or to
enforce relevant UN resolutions and protect world peace and security."

I think that is pretty clear.

ScottW