• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Where Were You in 2002? Where are you today?

What Best Describes Your Positions?

  • I supported the invasion of Iraq and I support the Libyan Intervention

    Votes: 15 30.0%

  • I opposed the Invasion of Iraq, I support the Libyan Intervention

    Votes: 12 24.0%

  • I supported the Invasion of Iraq, I oppose the Libyan Intervention

    Votes: 7 14.0%

  • I opposed both.

    Votes: 16 32.0%
  • Total voters
    50
Chappy said:
I would be interested in anything you can point to that demonstrates that the United Nations Security Council authorized the Iraq invasion in 2003. Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

does the phrases "relevant subesquent resolutions" mean anything to you? This has been shown in thread after thread on here. Earlier resolutions authorized the use of force in all subsequent relevant resolutions and 1441 specifically referenced earlier resolutions that authorized the use of force.

UNSC reso 1441 said:
Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,
Click to expand...

UNSC reso 678; first two operative clauses said:
Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter,

1. Demands that Iraq comply fully with resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions, and decides, while maintaining all its decisions, to allow Iraq one final opportunity, as a pause of goodwil, to do so;

2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;
Click to expand...

Thanks for playing...
 
Last edited:
I'm not playing at all. But you have provoked me into looking into it further and it is not as cut and dried as you say; indeed it is far from that.

You are ignoring some significant controversy about what the various U.N. Security Council resolutions add up to at least from the perspective of the United Nations Security Council. Fact is the it debated for two days in late February, 2003 and established nothing, leaving it as the it “Decides to remain seized of the matter.” Not a natural phrase for most of us.

Excerpted from “What Is the United Nations Seizing, Anyway?” By Brendan I. Koerner, Slate, Posted Thursday, Feb. 27, 2003, at 4:05 PM ET
[SIZE="+2"]T[/SIZE]he U.N. Security Council is considering a new U.S.-backed draft resolution that would authorize the use of military force against Iraq. The resolution ends with the phrase, "Decides to remain seized of the matter"; the same idiom concluded Resolution 1441, which launched the latest round of weapons inspections. What does that snippet of stilted English mean?

The Security Council finishes virtually all of its resolutions with that awkward phrase, as a means of staking out its bureaucratic turf. According to Article 12 of the U.N. charter:

While the Security Council is exercising in respect of any dispute or situation the functions assigned to it in the present Charter, the General Assembly shall not make any recommendation with regard to that dispute or situation unless the Security Council so requests.
​

So by remaining "seized of the matter"—or, in the vernacular, by formally keeping the issue on the front burner—the 15-member Security Council is officially telling the 191-member General Assembly to keep its mitts off for the time being. There have been occasions when the General Assembly has discussed a matter being handled by the Security Council, but the "decides to remain seized of the matter" expression pretty much precludes the body from taking any meaningful action.
Click to expand...

You say the Iraq invasion was authorized; but, no less an authority than Kofi Annan begs to differ.


Without a new resolution, the U.S. invasion was never formally authorized by the United Nations Security Council. Certainly President Bush thought it had failed to act.


Personally, I think Obama's obtaining United Nations Security Council resolution 1973 regarding “The situation in Libya” is nothing short of a small miracle.

It's just one of the reasons that I think this intervention is quite different from the “The situation in Iraq” back in 2003.
 
Last edited:
Chappy said:
I'm not playing at all. But you have provoked me into looking into it further and it is not as cut and dried as you say; indeed it is far from that.

You are ignoring some significant controversy about what the various U.N. Security Council resolutions add up to at least from the perspective of the United Nations Security Council. Fact is the it debated for two days in late February, 2003 and established nothing, leaving it as the it “Decides to remain seized of the matter.” Not a natural phrase for most of us.
Click to expand...

You didn't refute the text of the resolutions, did you?



You say the Iraq invasion was authorized; but, no less an authority than Kofi Annan begs to differ.


Without a new resolution, the U.S. invasion was never formally authorized by the United Nations Security Council. Certainly President Bush thought it had failed to act.

Click to expand...

None of this changes the fact that there IS a connection between the resos, that force WAS authorized for it and all subsequent resolutions. You ignored the text. The Secretary General, while important, is not the main determiner if something is legal or not. Note, all of those who said it was a violation of international law never did bring it before the ICJ, the only body with the jurisdiction to determine the legality of the action... I wonder why...
Personally, I think Obama's obtaining United Nations Security Council resolution 1973 regarding “The situation in Libya” is nothing short of a small miracle.
Click to expand...

On this point, we are in complete agreement. I thought for sure the Chinese would veto, though am not at all surprised the Chinese are whining about it now.

It's just one of the reasons that I think this intervention is quite different from the “The situation in Iraq” back in 2003.
Click to expand...

I agree that the explicit authorization of force in this case is one element that makes it different, but it is by far not the only one. However, just because a new resolution was not passed, it doesn't mean the use of force wasn't legal and authorized by the Security Council... Chapter 7 resolutions mean something...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom