|
WolverineDeus (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
The warning of "severest consequences" in Resolution 1154 is a clear reference to the use of force. However, it is addressed to Iraq, not the Member States, and is not worded as an authorization. In the debate over 1154 and whether it automatically empowered use of force, the Security Council said: "Therefore, any hint of automaticity with regard to the application of force has been excluded; that would not be acceptable for the majority of the Councils members."
WolverineDeus (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Further, Resolution 687 states that the Security Council "decides to remain actively seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the region." This clearly contemplates that the Security Council remains seized of the matter and will itself decide what further steps may be required for the implementation of that resolution.
WolverineDeus (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
The wording of the Gulf War resolutions shows that, when the Security Council intends to authoriZe the use of force, it does so in clear terms. Resolution 678 referred to the use of "all necessary means", phrasing which does not appear in any subsequent Resolution relating to Iraq. The phrase "all necessary
means" has also been used when the Security Council authorized intervention in Rwanda, Bosnia, Somalia and Haiti.
WolverineDeus (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Resolution 678, at paragraph 2, authorised Member States "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." Resolution 660 had the sole
aim of restoring the sovereignty of Kuwait. After that had been achieved, Resolution 687 imposed a formal cease-fire. That cease-fire was conditional on Iraqs acceptance of
certain terms. It did accept those terms.
alfimon (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
I would appreciate that kelric6. I know the US was batting for Saddam to beat Iran but the use of wmd's is sickening.
alfimon (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
wolvy the UN's own words
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;
subsequent
1.occurring or coming later or after
2.following in order or
how many UNSCR's later?
kelric6 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
I could tell u about it later alfimon if u really want since wolvy doesn't know all about it. I gotta go now, but wolvy spoke too soon and he twisted it around to fit his own words instead of telling teh full truth.
alfimon (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
wolvy I asked for more detail about this resolution that was threatened with a veto and you disparage me instead. Typical....
Since you can't/won't provide me with anything other than your word that occurred. Sorry but unlike you I like to verify what I post.
kelric6 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Yes, but according to 1441 they had one last chance and they blew it. They had illegal weapons which when told to dispose couldn't be confermed. There were also many otehr multiple offences. They broke UN regulations and the UN was supposed to intervene. Some countries did, but that is a weakness on teh UN. They were forced to intervene and they couldn't succesfully do anything.
damatt08 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
every nation pulls out threats, that may not go along with its true view, just to get what they want. its part of the power game in the UN. its just politics on a grander scale. |
