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.

 

What will the UN do?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
AF1

posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 01:39 PM
link   
When the United States goes into Iraq, how will the UN respond. It will technically be illegal, but what can the UN do about it? I don't think their really is anything that they can do, and this will just prove the innefectiveness of the UN.




posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 01:42 PM
link   
I've said before that the UN doesn't work. They tell a country to do somthing and don't have the nuggets to back up their request



posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 01:48 PM
link   
If i'm right about this then great!........

When the war starts, the UN will have no choice but to step in, even if it is just Marshall Aid.
The problem is...if any of their guys gets blown to smitherins, then the victims country will probably retaliate!!


This just might be me thinking out my butt again, 18 cups of hospital coffee will do that to you; but we'll probably find that the UN will help the UK, US and Spain sometime in their struggle!!



posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 01:58 PM
link   
The UN worked on the Iraq crisis. Since the security council democratically decided that disarmament must be achieved through inspections and whithout unnecessary bloodshed, an american intervention simply would be vigilantism. Ok, go ahead, set the rules for the a new century of unpunished vigilantism. But dont be surprised if america wont be the only vigilante.



posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 02:28 PM
link   
The UN will continue to do what they do best: Nothing.

I think they should save themselves and back whatever the US does, I know that sounds contradictive to their stance, but what choice do they have to remain relevant, it may be their only choice. Besides - I am optimistic that the US has put forth a huge amount of effort to make this go smoothly. (At least, I friggin hope they did!!!) - the smoother it goes the worse the UN looks, in my opinion.


[Edited on 17-3-2003 by Bob88]



posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob88
- the smoother it goes the worse the UN looks, in my opinion.
[Edited on 17-3-2003 by Bob88]


This is the kind of incendiary comment nobody wants to see.



posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 02:55 PM
link   
I'm with Bob88 on this, the UN will continue to sit back and do NOTHING.

AF1 - As far as this being illegal, I don't see that. Resolution 1441 was approved 15 - 0 and states that Iraq was to disarm in 30 days and comply with the previous UN resolutions. If that didn't happen (which it didn't), then Iraq would suffer 'sever consequences', which is political talk for military action. So I don't see how you stating this is illegal hold any merit.



posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr. Know
Resolution 1441 ... states that Iraq was to disarm in 30 days and comply with the previous UN resolutions. If that didn't happen ...


Seems you should read the resolution



posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Seems you should read the resolution


I'm afraid I don't follow you Karl, am I wrong? If so, please enlighten us with the correct interpretation to 1441.

1441 was passed in November, it is now March, that seems a little longer than 30 days. I anxiously await your response.



posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Nothing nothing at all. The UN is nothing mroe tahn a little debating club. Clinton had that illegal bombing in Serbia. He went in and got Miloshicvh out of power. That is the only smart thing Bill did. Bush should get in there and kill Saddam. And the Un wont do anything. What are they going to do decalre war on us?



posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 03:39 PM
link   
Here you go Karl, see I did my reading, what about you?

Resolution 1441 Paragraph 3

3. Decides that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

Resolution 1441 Paragraph 13

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;



posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Here is a link to resolution 1441.....
usinfo.state.gov...

Iraq has not lived up to it.



posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr. Know
Seems you should read the resolution


I'm afraid I don't follow you Karl, am I wrong?


res 1441 set no deadline on the disarmament of iraq.
It calls for weapon inspections. And the inspectors are now saying "we need more time, we can resolve this without violence".

Bush doesnt like that idea and answers "HARRWWWGGGNNN HARRWGHHLLL-NNN"



posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 03:48 PM
link   
Just so we're all clear: Iraq has had 12 years to disarm.



posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 03:54 PM
link   
The UN has always been a forum for debate it has never been an agency which reserves the sole right to declare war. In this case the institution presumed
itself as the latter which it has never been.

Saddam Hussein claimed yesterday if he is attacked the war would be world wide what is he basing this on?

1441 was not meant to be a last chance for Saddam Hussein, Karl as well am waiting for your response???



posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Karl, I respectfully disagree with you, and you are wrong. Read resolution 1441, paragragh 3. 30 days, period!

An yes Bob88, 12 years to disarm is way to long. Just shows the ineffectiveness of the UN.



posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Toltec -

How many chances does Iraq get? Do we wait another 12 years when Saddam is at Hitler status? He's had 12 years, and 17 resolutions, and nothing but defiance. If Iraq hasn't disarmed by now, it never will.



posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 04:03 PM
link   
They had 30 days to DISCLOSE...which they still haven't done, and therefore are in breach of the resolution.

However, going in without UN sanction is technically against international law, though 1441 will prove handy in countering the accusation. I, for one however, usually believe in doing what's right...which is not always what's "technically" legal...


What will the UN do? Hopefully, after this, reorganize based on TODAY'S political client, vs, post WWII's....

Though, I'll still stand by the fact that GW has gone about this completely the wrong way, and come off like the buffoon he is...

[Edited on 17-3-2003 by Gazrok]

[Edited on 17-3-2003 by Gazrok]



posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
...which is not always what's "technically" legal...


Technical legality is the highest good in a democracy, since opinions can be different. You shouldnt let Saddam transform the united states into a eleventh-century mob regime.



posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Its more like we are going to bring an 11th century country into the 21st century.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join