It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

And So It Begins - U.N. gives Iran 30 days

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 09:29 PM
link   
Since when does anything the UN says mean anything?

How many years passed with absolutely nothing being done about Iraq violating the UN's resolutions?




posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 09:30 PM
link   
Since when does anything the UN says mean anything?

How many years passed with absolutely nothing being done about Iraq violating the UN's resolutions?



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by craig732
Since when does anything the UN says mean anything?

How many years passed with absolutely nothing being done about Iraq violating the UN's resolutions?



Iraq was not in violation of any resolutions at the time of the invasion.

If you think they were would you post a quote from them?

Israel, and India have far more resolutions against them that they are violating.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malichai

Iraq was not in violation of any resolutions at the time of the invasion.

If you think they were would you post a quote from them?

Sure, try here:


In addition, United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949. Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (P.L. 102–1) has authorized the President ‘‘to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677’’. In December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it ‘‘supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (P.L. 102–1),’’ that Iraq’s repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and ‘‘constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,’’ and that Congress, ‘‘supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688’’.

Congressional Resolution Authorizing Force Against Iraq







seekerof



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 10:53 PM
link   
Let's not be too technical TC. The US has clearly defied the UN. I wouldn't be fast to say it's necessarily bad because of that, simply because my views on "good and bad" are fairly utilitarian.

What is the UN? A good old boys club built by the victors of WWII: an attempt to divide the world up and rule it together which has gone wrong because the allies couldn't stand in solidarity afterwards.

The UN is words on paper, backed or broken by what occurs in the real world, like any international law.

The UN doesn't really "give Iran 30 days" unless somebody is going to act. The UN wont, although maybe the US will. I would advise looking for actions short of war, so long as these will have results that extend beyond words on paper. (Afterall, I think we all agree that if we can keep people from dying without creating the potential for even more people to die, that's the way to go).

Nor does the UN really "deny the US permission to attack Iraq" unless the UN is planning on NOT PERMITTING America from attacking Iraq. They stood by and permitted it.

Words on paper, good for three things: 1. The advancement of knowledge (which only becomes relevant when praciced) 2. Binding those who are idealistic enough to bind themselves. 3. Leaving you feeling clean and confident even when you're out of toilet paper.

I wouldn't advise arguing on semantics that we didn't defy the UN. I'd just go right to the heart of the matter: the UN is not yet functional. It's a work in progress that nobody binds themselves by at present, but which nobody completely walks away from because it will one day be put to use, probably as part of a power-conslidation conspiracy to keep the NWO from factionalizing and losing its grip once it comes to power.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

Sure, try here:


In addition, United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949. Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (P.L. 102–1) has authorized the President ‘‘to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677’’. In December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it ‘‘supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (P.L. 102–1),’’ that Iraq’s repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and ‘‘constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,’’ and that Congress, ‘‘supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688’’.

Congressional Resolution Authorizing Force Against Iraq


This is from America, not the UN. It ignores the ceasefire in 687. Authorization to use force can only come from the Security council, not America.

688 was related to the suppression of the Kurdish Coup attempt. At the time of the invasion the Kurdish northern areas were semi-autonomous out of Saddams control.

Iraq was not in violation of any UN resolutions, and America did not have UN authorization for an invasion. It was a violation of Article two of the UN charter.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malichai
This is from America, not the UN. It ignores the ceasefire in 687. Authorization to use force can only come from the Security council, not America.



Iraq was not in violation of any UN resolutions, and America did not have UN authorization for an invasion. It was a violation of Article two of the UN charter.


You know, I have to wonder if you even research before you state absolutes.

Try this, not from the US:


Instructs Weapons Inspections to Resume within 45 Days, Recalls Repeated Warning of ‘Serious Consequences’ for Continued Violations

SECURITY COUNCIL HOLDS IRAQ IN ‘MATERIAL BREACH’ OF DISARMAMENT OBLIGATIONS, OFFERS FINAL CHANCE TO COMPLY, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1441 (2002)


More here:


United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 is a resolution by the UN Security Council, passed unanimously on November 8, 2002, offering Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions (Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, and Resolution 1284), notably to provide "an accurate full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by Resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles". Resolution 1441 threatens "serious consequences" if these are not met. It reasserted demands that UN weapons inspectors should have "immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access" to sites of their choosing, in order to ascertain compliance.

Although Iraq was given until November 15 to accept the resolution, they agreed on November 13. Weapons inspectors, absent from Iraq since December 1998, returned later that month, led by Hans Blix of UNMOVIC and Mohamed ElBaradei of the IAEA.

In early December, 2002, Iraq filed a 12,000-page weapons declaration with the UN in order to meet requirements for this resolution. Unfortunately, this was largely a recycled version of a past unsatisfactory report, and the UN and the US said that it failed to account for all of Iraq's chemical and biological agents.

Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei presented several reports to the UN detailing Iraq's level of compliance with Resolution 1441. On January 30, 2003 Blix said that Iraq had not fully accepted its obligation to disarm, and the report was taken broadly negatively. The report of February 14 was more encouraging for Iraq, saying that there had been significant progress and cooperation. However, the issues of anthrax, the nerve agent VX and long-range missiles were not resolved. France, Germany and other countries called for more time and resources for the inspections. The March 7 report was again seen as broadly positive, but Blix noted that disarmament and the verification of it would take months, rather than weeks or days

UN Security Council Resolution 1441







seekerof

[edit on 1-4-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 12:33 AM
link   
Malichai,

I'll be the first to admit when I am wrong. Due to the fact that I do not know the processes involved in the enrichment processes of Uranium I will take your word on it.

Being that Iran is a militant, theocracy who supports the likes of Hizbullah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad and that they are developing the means of delivery of weapons (conventional and non-conventional) with missiles capable of reaching Israel and Europe, I think that much attention should be placed on their nuclear ambitions.
Moreover, If the US, Israel and Germany (if not more countries) are worried about Iran it should not be taken lightly. Iran by supporting Hizbullah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad who have engaged in terrorist activities around the world is a danger to everyone.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

You know, I have to wonder if you even research before you state absolutes.

Try this, not from the US:


Since Wiki is less reliable than Sesame Street I'm going to skip over that and go straight to the UN Press Release.


The Council demanded that Iraq confirm, within seven days, its intention to comply fully with the resolution. It further decided that, within 30 days, Iraq, in order to begin to comply with its obligations, should provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA and the Council a complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, including chemical, biological and nuclear programmes it claims are for purposes not related to weapons production or material. Any false statement or omission in the declaration will be considered a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations, and will be reported to the Council for assessment.

www.un.org...


Iraq let the inspectors in, and made their declaration.


Also speaking after the vote, Council members said that their views had been taken into account in the final version of the draft, which was co-sponsored by the United States and the United Kingdom. The representative of France welcomed the two-stage approach required by the resolution, saying that the concept of “automaticity” for the use of force had been eliminated.


Despite your claims to the contrary the UN did not authorize the use of force with 1441.

Now, if we look at the actual resolution itself instead of the talk surrounding it we can see that indeed it does not authorize the use of force.


www.un.org...

UN Secuirty Council Resolution 1441

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that
it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its
obligations;


Recalls is not the same as 'calls on' or 'demands'.

A second UN Resolution was required to authorize an attack, or invasion.

Considering no WMD were found in Iraq how could anyone say they were in violation of any resolutions?



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Malichai

Originally posted by craig732
Since when does anything the UN says mean anything?

How many years passed with absolutely nothing being done about Iraq violating the UN's resolutions?



Iraq was not in violation of any resolutions at the time of the invasion.

If you think they were would you post a quote from them?

Israel, and India have far more resolutions against them that they are violating.


I never said anything about the invasion of Iraq.

I pointed out the impotence of the UN; they did nothing productive to enforce their own resolutions against Iraq.

The point I was trying to make was: What makes anyone think that if they make any resolution against Iran in 30 days that it will ever mean anything?



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 08:19 AM
link   
Malichai,


Since Wiki is less reliable than Sesame Street I'm going to skip over that and go straight to the UN Press Release.

I respect you input into debates even though we see things differently. Here I must say that WIKI has its advantages. It is a source anyone can play part of, meaning that it is balanced. New information will be posted by the various users which can contribute their 2 cents worth. The UN on the other hand is politically motivated and is not always 'fair'. There are factions within factions within the international community all pulling the strings to their favor. The EU does it, the US does it and so do the Arab countries.
The general assembly is a joke and the security counsel is a 'rich-man's club'. The UN is a corrupted and used by terrorist organizations as well.

As a citizen of earth I am happy Sadaam is out of power. As a US citizen I do not want US soldiers to die in Iraq, as an Israeli I do not think that the middle east is more stable.

I hope that the situation in Iraq will calm down although the blame I do not place on the US - I place the blame on the various insurgents who do not care for the lives of the Iraqi civilians but only for their political motives and ideologies.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 08:19 AM
link   

I pointed out the impotence of the UN; they did nothing productive to enforce their own resolutions against Iraq.


The inspectors were in Iraq with full access, the sanctions were still in place, and the rockets that went slightly over the allowed limit were being destroyed.

There were plenty of productive actions being taken. The UN did not authorize an invasion, but the purpose of the UN is to stop war, not promote it.

You just don't like the fact that the world would not give permission for an invasion. Rather than establish this precedant, that nations would be invaded for violating resolutions, they decided to take a peaceful approach.

Post-invasion knowledge that Iraq did not have WMD shows that the rest of the world was right in what they did. Iraq was no threat, America was.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 08:27 AM
link   
Guys go through my previous post, it has a lot of information on this issue and I have tried to cover a very large area. It does have information on how the war started. As stated before, the UN tied its best. The UN inspectors were in Iraq and they did investigate. They need more time and were given 10 days only. The US and UK did not approach the UN twice and on the 17th of march decided to go to war. UK was in support and on 20th of March 2002, the attack started.

There is a fair bit of information in the links I have given.

Hope it answers some of the questions that are arising.

Cheers and Peace

Knowledge23

PS Dnt misinterpret the 10 days as only 10 days to inspect Iraq. They were in Iraq by the end of November 2002 and in february 2003, from recollection UN inspector Hans addressed the UN security council requesting more time.....

[edit on 2-4-2006 by knowledge23]



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 09:26 AM
link   
since we are discussin g UN resolutions , when are israel going to be bombed back to the stone age for breaking 100 resolutions??


never thats when , they have nukes and the willingness to use them.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malichai

I pointed out the impotence of the UN; they did nothing productive to enforce their own resolutions against Iraq.

You just don't like the fact that the world would not give permission for an invasion.


I am sorry if I am not making myself clear here. So please allow me to make myself clear:

I never mentioned the invasion.

My statement had absolutely nothing to do with the invasion.

Yes, right before the invasion the UN was allowed access to do inspections.

That does not negate the fact that for many years before that very little was done to enforce all of the resolutions against Iraq.

There are MANY countries with UN resolutions against them that are not actively enforced by the UN (as Harlequin pointed out Israel is one of them).

The UN is a joke and I still don't understand why anyone would be concerned if they consider resolutions or sanctions agains Iran.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by JudahMaccabbi

I respect you input into debates even though we see things differently. Here I must say that WIKI has its advantages. It is a source anyone can play part of, meaning that it is balanced.


Balance and reliablity are two different things, and I think it lacks both. There have been several hoaxes presented as real, and so many posters were putting up political propaganda they banned the IP for Congress, and locked down many articles.

Just because anyone can create content does not mean all sides are represented equally in application. Wiki has a strong American tilt on most everything, not that I see this as a bad thing.

While I admit I use it myself sometimes for research I won't use it as a source. Much of whats there is referenced so an outside link a click away if not a quick Google.

[edit on 2-4-2006 by Malichai]



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 12:29 PM
link   
For the record,

Just cause the U.N gives a 30 day warning, does not mean we will see another Iraq or military action, there is numerous punishment that can be carried out without war. It will probably result in sanctions on Iran, remember too that the President of Iran does not hold a majority.

Iran knows it has to be a "good little boy" because if it continues to piss the UN off, Russia and China will happily decline their support. Iran will be very lonely if Russia and China leave the party.

[edit on 2-4-2006 by infinite]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join