Resolution 1441 has as its publicly stated consequence the use of force should Iraq violate the Resolution. No it does not.
A) Oh, come on...you know as well as I do that the US was the biggest force in the UN to move for that action,,,Schwarzkopf has even said so... B) So...re: your last statement, I suppose that that means that YOU would be totally opposed to unilateral or non-UN supported action, right? As you say, you can't just pick and choose...
True, but that only begs the question why force wasn't threatened for the other resolutions. The Israel, Turkey and Morrocco issues where all territorial also.
And if the US 'supports' it, then Saddam suddenly and mysteriously changes his mind? Hmm. Cohen -- I missed this earlier. I agree this is a risk, but I think its one you have to take to break this impasse. If he relents, we've got thousands of U.N. troops inside Iraq now. That seems like a great starting point, plus it gives us the opportunity to mend relations with the world and reestablish a leadership role again. It makes it much more difficult for Saddam to do anything and certainly to keep moving things around the country if there are UN troops all over the place.
From CNN.com (sorry if this has already been posted. I don't come into political discussions too often around these parts. Speaking on ABC's "This Week," Lafitte cited the discovery and destruction last week of 10 artillery shells filled with mustard gas -- cataloged by previous inspection teams but not destroyed before they left Iraq in 1998 -- and a report that declared Iraq's Al Samoud 2 missiles were not in compliance with U.N. rules and must be destroyed. The Iraqis responded that they would not destroy their Al Samouds after the report found that they exceeded the allowable range of 150 kilometers (93 miles) by about 30 kilometers (18 miles). Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz scoffed at the idea, saying the missiles were not capable of reaching "any country around Iraq." The French ambassador would not say whether his government thought Iraq's refusal to destroy the missiles represented a material breach of the resolutions requiring disarmament. Christopher Meyer, Britain's ambassador to the United States, was more specific. "The key standard is the key requirement of [U.N. Resolution] 1441, which is that if Iraq wants to avoid serious consequences, then it must cooperate fully, comprehensively and immediately," he told ABC. "That resolution found Iraqis already in material breach. "Nothing we have heard from the two reports so far from Hans Blix tells us we have had the nature of cooperation the resolution requires." Failure to destroy the Al Samoud missiles, Meyer said, "would dig the material breach deeper." Why isn't this enough of an opening to gain support?
Agreed. I was intrigued with the possibilities of blue hat proposal from the start, particularly if they employ some of the emerging technologies. I would generally prefer to 'correct' many issues in one swoop including deomcracy for the Iraqis (I'm really hung-up on that now) rather than have the UN occupy a country indefinitely, but the horrible human cost of war could have me swing in favor of that option (if certain UN guarantees are made...i.e., no waffling 3 years down the road). Side note...I still wonder how the average Iraqi feels about War w/ Freedom -vs- No War/continued oppression. I think Saddam is more savvy than many think. Instead of oppressing the Iraqis in every way possible, he built them a decent economy and educational system (reportedly). Not sure if this was to stave off Islamic fundamentalism, or to make the masses less lilely to revolt, or both.
.....but didn't Iraq accept the temp ceasefire at Safwan and then<b> accept</b> the terms of UN Resolution 687? So wouldn't that elevate/alter their situation in terms of disregarding UN resolutions compared to other countries? <A HREF="gopher://gopher.undp.org/00/undocs/scd/scouncil/s91/4%09+Text/plain">RESOLUTION 687 (1991) </A> <i>................ 33. Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the provisions above, a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990); 34. Decides to remain seized of the matter and <b>to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution</b> and to secure peace and security in the area. </i> <A HREF="http://www.unog.ch/uncc/introduc.htm">The United Nations Compensation Commission</A> <i>..............Three days after the adoption of resolution 687 (1991), Iraq, in a letter to the Secretary-General and the President of the Security Council, accepted the terms of the resolution, thereby accepting legal responsibility for damage directly caused to Governments, individuals and corporations by its invasion and occupation of Kuwait...........</i>
