Resolution 1441 and those in opposition to the War

[Bonegavel]

Anyone against this war because the UN didn't "sanction" it, please read this:

http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm

and tell me what you think this resolution means to you.

This isn't a troll, I just want to know why you think this resolution was written and what you think the UN's next step was to be because of its unanimous ratification.

There are other reasons to be against the war. This thread is just for those who think we should have UN backing.

[John Galt]

I'm mostly against the war for reasons other than UN backing, but I'll try to give the arguments I've most often heard.

First, "serious consequences" is undefined.

Second, proof of violation wasn't proven. Despite some readings of the resolution, I think it requires some notion of innocent until proven guilty and not the guilty until proven innocent idea. The few areas of proven non-compliance by Iraq in the last year were relatively benign (missiles that exceeded the speed limit when guidance was removed, etc.).

Third, and probably most importantly, the body that made the resolution should be able to interpret it and not the US. I think the analogy of early constitutional law in America is good. Early in the republic, the president argued he could interpret the constitution and thus ignore the Supreme Court. Nowadays, we believe the Supreme Court has the final say for constitutional questions. I think the US in acting in the "name" of the resolution, was like the early presidents.

There may be more reasons, and I admit this was not my primary reason for opposing the war, but I think those are the core arguments.

[The Afoci]

At this point I feel like I should say something to bring you down. It just doesn't look right not seeing something making fun of you after everyone of your posts.

[rexalllsc]

Originally posted by John Galt


First, "serious consequences" is undefined.

Second, proof of violation wasn't proven.

Define what you think serious consequences would mean in this context.

Proof of violation wasn't needed, proof of disarmament was.

NEEEEXT

[albionmoonlight]

I agree with John G. It was not up to the U.S. to determine what the resolution means.

He also raises an interesting issue by bringing up the early republic. Back in the days before the Supreme Court had the respect that it does (indeed, before the concept of a federal government as opposed to a confederation of states had the respect that it does), there were several decisions that the court made that were--for lack of a better term--politically expedient. Indeed, the most famous power grab that the court made--Marbury v. Madison--was done in such a way that those most offended by the case technically "won" the case and did not really have any moral or legal ground to challenge it.

The early court understood that it had exactaly as much power as people decided it had. If it tried to grab too much too soon or came down with decisions that many important people did not like, it would be disbanded. The court has no POWER. It needs the executive to enforce its will. By going with the flow in the early years and taking power slowly, the court (and the country) was able to gain the respect that it has today. Now, five old guys in Washington can say something, and we all obey. Pretty amazing when you think of it that way.

The UN may be in the position now that the Supreme Court was back in the day. They have as much relevance as those with power allow them to have. I am a big fan of international government--so I am biased on this point--I want the UN (or something with even more teeth) to succeed.

But, if it takes actions with which a lot of important people disagree, it will cease to exist in any relevant matter.

Of course, the dynamic between the UN and its member countries differs from the dynamic between the Supreme Court and the president, but I think that the analogy is close enough to provide food for thought.

[albionmoonlight]

dola--

people will now post and say that the UN already does not exist in any relevant manner.

Maybe, maybe not.

If so, is that because they are wrong or because they disagreed with us?

[John Galt]

Originally posted by rexalllsc
Define what you think serious consequences would mean in this context.

Proof of violation wasn't needed, proof of disarmament was.

NEEEEXT

Interesting you ignore the 3rd reason which gives force to the first two. Serious consequences could certainly mean war, but the UN should be the one to determine that. Also, your second point is a claim without a warrant.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by albionmoonlight
dola--

people will now post and say that the UN already does not exist in any relevant manner.

Maybe, maybe not.

If so, is that because they are wrong or because they disagreed with us?

And you can't argue that the resolution justifies the war, while arguing the body that made the resolution is irrelevant.

[rexalllsc]

Originally posted by John Galt
Interesting you ignore the 3rd reason which gives force to the first two. Serious consequences could certainly mean war, but the UN should be the one to determine that. Also, your second point is a claim without a warrant.

Ok, I'll address it: the body that made the resolution should be able to interpret it and not the US

What good is diplomacy w/o the threat of force to back it? France said it would veto any further resolution brought. It was clear that the UN was not going to back it's own resolutions.

As fas as my second claim (Proof of violation wasn't needed, proof of disarmament was.)...without warrant? This resolution was drafted with the premise that Iraq DOES was already in violation. It was their job to show that they had disarmed. What, you believe that they dumped thousands of liters of chem. weapons down a well, and didn't document it? Would you take their word for it?

[Bonegavel]

Thanks John and Albion for your posts. As I'm sure you know, I am, for lack of a better term, pro Opereration Iraqi Freedom, but I refuse to fall into the quick-bash mode that is akin to what just got a member banned for 3-days. I have long non-argumentative discussions with my best friend who is "anti-war" in this case. Interestingly enough, he is anti-bush at heart, though I know that is not his only reason.

If any other points discussed in this thread come up, please continue to post here.

I know emotions can run high with discussions like this, but I will attack your argument and not you. We are all valued members of this community, and as such, demand respect regardless of our viewpoints. I know this goes without saying, but I have seen too many needless personal slams that have no subtance to back them up.

Kudos to rex for staying on-message.

[albionmoonlight]

Thanks for the kind words.

In the interest of equal time, I must say that some of the evidence that is starting to come out about contracts that French and Russian interests had with Saddam's government might dampen some of my support for the UN as it stood before the war.

I am still a big fan of international government in theory. As it worked in practice here . . . I'll wait for some more evidence to come out, but I am a little discouraged in what I have found out so far.

Small tangent--humanitarian reasons aside, why the hell would you get into a contract with or lend money to Saddam's government as a business decision? That seems about as smart as lending $100 bucks to Kenneth Lay and only getting an I.O.U. in return. Did it not occur to these people over the past decade or so that maybe, just maybe, Saddam was a crazy nutbag who had no intention of honoring his contracts even if he somehow mangaged to avoid assassination and/or invasion?

[tucker342]

Even if the UN would have said it was okay, I still would have been against the war, unless they found ABSOULTE proof. That's the only way, otherwise, I feel that there are more important things that are government should be worrying about

[mrskippy]

Originally posted by tucker342
Even if the UN would have said it was okay, I still would have been against the war, unless they found ABSOULTE proof. That's the only way, otherwise, I feel that there are more important things that are government should be worrying about

Oh, they'll find absolute proof. And you'll be glad when they do.