Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2009 October
2009 September
2009 April
2009 March
2008 November
2008 October
2008 September
2008 July
2008 June
2008 May
2008 April
2008 March
2008 January
2007 December
2007 November
2007 October
2007 September
2007 August
2007 July
2007 June
2007 March
2007 February
2006 October
2006 September
2006 August
2006 July
2006 June
2006 May
2006 April
2006 March
2006 February
2006 January
2005 December
2005 October
2005 September
2005 August
2005 July
2005 June
2005 May
2005 April
2005 March
2005 February
2005 January
2004 December
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
My Links
Canadawide
Juan Cole
TPM
Daily Dish
CanucksCathie
E-Group
vanramblings
peace order and good government
Calgary Grit
True North
Gwynn Dyer
Public eye
declan
Sean
Progressive Blogs
Voice in the Wilderness
Tilting at windmills
sec 15
tyee
one damn thing after another
Antonia Zerbisias
Buckets of Grewal
Blank out Times
Accidental Deliberations
Heartlands
Rick Mercer
buckets too
Amazing wonderdog
The Maple Three
The Hive
Cindy Silver 7
Cindy Silver 6
Cindy Silver 5
Cindy Silver 4
Cindy Silver 3
Cindy Silver 2
Cindy Silver
Cindy Silver Sum
Cindy Silver 9
Cindy Silver PR
Cindy Silver (blogs Canada)
Cindy Silver (Blogs Canada 2)
Liberal Blogs
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
| Preventative War Red Herring |
| 05.02.04 (10:43 pm) [edit] |
|
Contrary to what many people seem to believe, the Iraq War was not the first of many preventative wars that neo-cons in Washington are set to embark on. The events of the last few months have proven once and for all that depending on what side of the ideological fence one sits, the idea of Washington embarking on a series of preventive wars is either a wet dream, or paranoid delusion. Once more, the fact of the matter was that the Iraq war was not a preventative war at all. The 1991 cease-fire agreement “between the Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait” was still in affect and thus the US and Britain where technically at war with Iraq already. The issues at hand were, in reality, as follows. One, if some of the member nations determined that Iraq had violated the terms of 1991 cease-fire, did those nations have the legal authority to enforce those resolutions by themselves, or was the agreement of the security council needed for such an action? Two, what lengths could a party go to reinforce the relevant resolutions. France et al argued that only the Security Council as a whole had the right to decide whether Iraq had met its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and that only the Security Council as a whole had the right to act and to decide what was needed to enforce various UN resolutions. The US et al disagreed on both counts. Disagreements of this kind predated the buildup to the current crisis. The biggest bone of contention was what to make of paragraphs 21 and 22 of UN resolution 687. Whereas, the French and Russians focused on paragraph 22 which seems to allow the lifting of sanctions once Iraq has rid itself of its WMD weapons and programs, the US and British focused on paragraph 21, which required the Iraqis to comply with “all relevant UN resolutions”, including, the US and Britain argued, UN resolution 688. The impetus for the creation of Iraqi Kurdistan and the two no fly zones, 688 condemned “the repression of the Iraqi civilian population in many parts of Iraq.” Where this relates back to the matter at hand is that all sides tacitly allowed Britain and the US to enforce an interpretation of the cease-fire that not everyone agreed was correct. This led support to the US and British contention that they were free to act unilaterally back in March. Ironically, the Bush administration had been very reluctant to pass 688 in the first place, but was pressured into it by the weight of public opinion. |
| 0 Comments |