So, now that the war with Iraq has been legitimized by the UN Security Council 14-0 with Syria not present, how do you feel about it? Are you surprised? Are you angry that at least token condemnation wasn't shown? Are you pleased? Do you care?

For myself, I wasn't surprised that it was done, but I'm surprised that it was unanimous with the exception of Syria. Though of course many indicated they had reservations...

Edit: A little tip of the hat to Yago in the title change :)

[ May 22, 2003, 23:03: Message edited by: Blackthorne TA ]

I guess you'll have to fill me in BTA...

My understanding was that this resolution was an agreement of cooperation within the UN on the rebuilding and future of Iraq, but had little (if anything) to do with the war effort. I saw this as more of a "water under the bridge...let's just get past it and press forward" thing rather than a legitimizing resolution.

But I've heard very little about this, so I don't know. Can you elaborate a bit on the specifics - for the sake of the thread, anyway?

I haven't read the actual resolution yet, but the news reports I've seen say that in addition to removing the sanctions, it essentially provides for and legitimizes the occupation and running of Iraq by the US and the rest of the coalition.

Legitimizes the occupation yes...but how does it legitimize the war? Or did you just mean occupation, and not the military action?

ps - any links? I'd like to read about it too.

From what I read of it, it was more of a "UN trying to stay relevant after being ignored" resolution than an acceptance of the invasion.

It also seems to be the only way the UN will be in on the reconstruction with any authority.

This is especially interesting considering the CIA allegations of Rumsfeld's staff exaggerating possible links between Iraq and al Queda and the possibilty of WOMD development, which was in the news earlier today.

By legitimizing the occupation by the invading forces, you are legitimizing the action that made them the occupying force. Or do you not agree?

http://www.un.org/News/dh/iraq/iraq-blue-res-052103en.pdf
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=564&e=5&u=/nm/20030522/ts_nm/iraq_dc_16
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=7162&Cr=iraq&Cr1=

I guess so...seems like a weird way to think about it, though I do see your meaning. For lack of better explaination I'll go with yours for now.

BTA, Lol, I wanted to post a thread with the same topic, but I thaught it would not be appropriate for me. :D

But my thread title would have been: Are the Polish, Germans and Danish goingt to war ?

This is a listing with the concessions the Americans made:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3049123.stm

The changes to earlier drafts included an expansion of the role of the UN - a key demand of Russia and France, two countries with the power of veto.

The occupying powers, the US and Britain, are left firmly in control of Iraq and its oil "until an internationally recognised, representative government is established".

Our correspondent adds that the resolution sets a legal framework for the future of Iraq, and will give the go-ahead for companies wishing to invest in the country.

The US needed sanctions lifted in order to export Iraqi oil legally and to use the proceeds for reconstruction, while the anti-war camp had to recognise the reality of US and British control on the ground.

Iraq's massive debts will be dealt with by multilateral systems such as the Paris Club - thus dispelling Russian fears that the US would invalidate some of its claims.
But now to the part which is really worrying me. Now, my goverment is not allowed to sent troops in any foreign country. Well, it's not that we would have any significance at all. But I wonder, how those feel, who are actually sending troops.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3049413.stm

Military officials from a dozen mainly East European countries have begun meeting in Warsaw to discuss providing troops for a peacekeeping mission in Iraq.

The Polish press, citing official sources, has speculated that Spain, Italy, Bulgaria, Romania, Albania, Lithuania and Ukraine are likely to offer troops.

A new US draft resolution on Iraq, expected to go before the UN Security Council later on Thursday, should provide a legal basis for the mission.

This is crucial for all countries considering sending troops, so the exact wording of the draft is being studied carefully by governments which have sent representatives to Warsaw.

A significant UN role in the rebuilding of Iraq would make it easier for the waverers to persuade domestic public opinion that soldiers' lives should be risked.
So, the point which is worrying the most. As I stated before, there is a huge difference between conquering a country and occupying a country.

The infantry who is actually walking the streets in a foreign country is, if it comes to tensions, taking losses. So, the most risky part of the whole operation is now going to be laid on the back of the Europeans.

We all know, how the media reacted on British deads and on American deads in the last war.

I don't like the thought of Europeans sent to Iraq on a dangerous mission. They will not be in a fighter-plane nor in a tank. They will be walking the streets, open for any attack. And, again, that's the most dangerous part.

@ BTA

After reading the article, I tend not to agree. Here's why:
France, Germany, China and Russia who had opposed the U.S.-led war voted for the resolution but had reservations.

"The war that we did not want, and the majority of the council did not want, has taken place," Germany's U.N. ambassador, Gunter Pleuger, told reporters. "We cannot undo history. We are now in a situation where we have to take action for the sake of the Iraqi people." This doesn't legitimize the war because according to the council, it's not about military action, but economic action. Not so much saying "You were right," but rather saying "What's done is done...now there are more important things to focus on."

Or don't you agree?

Oh, yes, that's why the sanctions were lifted; economic reasons. But to me that's much different than legitimizing the occupying force, and with a unanimous decision too.

Dam, am I the only one worried here ???

It's a dirty, dirty deal.

The Americans gave:

1. They make no longer fuss about the Iraqi debt to European countries.

2. Iraw is a very, very, very rich country. European companies will now share the big deals and get their share of the oil.

3. The UN has some say now.

What the Americans get: They get soldiers

But to me that's much different than legitimizing the occupying force, and with a unanimous decision too Americans will still be in control, but they are not the occupying force anymore. The occupying force will be: Spain, Italy, Bulgaria, Romania, Albania, Lithuania and Ukraine. And the Polish of course.

Except of Aragorn II and Chevalier, is anyone from those countries even on this board ?

I see the headlines:" 20 Ukrainien (Sp ?) soldiers died through a bomb attack in Baghdad".

"Ten Albanian soldiers died in a shooting in northern-Iraq."

You're not the only one worried, Yago.

Funny, this somehow reminds me of how the world let the Germans annex other countries before WWII, isn't ironic the Polish who were themselves divided in a similar way are now among those who divide.

So Iraq has been split, the vultures will now start to share the oil between themselves and the US/UK forces will be relieved by colonial militias (mainly from eastern Europe) to maintain colonial order in Iraq, pretty much as it is already happening in Afghanistan, after all that's what NATO is there for, right?

Don't worry, we won't see many headlines in the news about X or Y soldiers from whatever country as the "brave" US/UK forces no longer required in Iraq will attack yet another helpless country (probably full of oil or natural gas, how strange) in the name of God / democracy / imperialism / free trade / self-defense (pick one).

The news will be all about Bush's reelection then about the next war on the agenda. If there's a paragraph about Ablanians getting killed it won't be anywhere near the front page of your paper.

How long will this continue? Until the whole world declares war on the US and their allies? Until a nuke explodes in NYC?

Ah, Godwin's Law has been invoked, lock down the thread.

Hmm, maybe it's time to read a good author again for a change: http://foi.missouri.edu/terrorbkgd/usgonemad.html

That they made a deal in the security council is one thing; the US action still is a crime.

:yot:

Laches, I didn't know about this Godwin's law and after a quick search I learned it is about making comparison to Nazis. Please notice I didn't used the term "Nazi" in my previous post. I was referring to German political and military moves, not Nazi doctrine or whatever. I didn't mean to spoil the thread and I will avoid such comparisons in the future.

Yago -- You have to know that I'm concerned about it too. The Bush people will be saying what BTA is saying, and I agree with him -- again Bush gets a blank check to "carry on." It will be 2004 campaign material. Anyone who runs on an anti-war platform will now have a tougher case to make. Agreed, BTA?

Godwin? You most certainly mean Harold's father, don't you? Eh, never mind.

I don't really care. So long as 'our' forces there behave. I'm not going to see them abusing civilians. However, since 'our' most irresponsible and mentally incapable government made that in, they should make that out too. They won't get re-elected for playing Indians and Cowboys, that's sure, even though they apparently think otherwise.

Seems our 2000 boys cover quite a piece of land full of kind and compassionate Shi'ites... Like one guy for 80 square kilometres. Heh, we've done more impressive things, like kicking the asses of 14000 technologically more advanced Swedes with 3300 men in 1605 or cutting their musketeers into pieces with sabres in 1627 ('telly ho' tactics), but we had wise leaders at that time. Well, and only a few moderately talented ones after that time, to be more precise.

Personally, I don't believe anything good will come from that. Time will show how many bad things however.

Last thought is that wars aren't children to be so easily legitimatised.

That's an interesting question Chandos, but I'm not sure how much the average American cares whether the legitimization happened or not, so I don't know whether its presence or absence would make any difference in the election. But, sure, it's possible.

Again, I am not a democrat, but the problem they face is that many of them gave Bush a blank check for war, especially in the senate. Now, those wanting to run against Bush will have to backtrack and try to find fault - not with the action, but how he went about it (unilateralist). The UN action does, IMO, make the war and occupation more legit than before. Dems, Kerry in particular, will have a tougher case to make to the American people. I think that the Dems will have to wait till 2008 (as an independent, I am also a realist). But they may have the last laugh, since Hillary might be the first woman prez. That would make Bill the First Man. How ironic!

:yot: But so many people (well about 3 if I remember right) have mentioned the elections. When abouts are they? I thought they were every 5 years there in USA, or am i wrong?

Sorry, Ruler -- I really thought that BTA was speaking to the implications of the UN resolution. That would of course cover many areas. IMO, it will really help Bush's prestige and credibility here in the states. Unless you live under a rock here, you would understand the impact it has had on the psychology of the American electorate. What else does he have to hang his Texas hat on without the "war on terror?" Not much, IMO. The elections are every four years.

:yot: I looked up Godwin's law too. I don't think it has been invoked. Poland's history consitsts mainly in being no independent state and being divided by it's neighbouring countries (Sweden, Prussia, Austria, Russia) over and over and over again. That happend also in WW2, but has no direct connection to the German-leading-party at that time. It was just a sort of "follow the old tradition". Today, Polands history is all invoked all over newspapers in Europe, because it is such an obvious link, a country which was occupied for centuries (and has a history of fighting foreign occupation) is now going to occupy others.

Sidenote: Polish history gives cities like Cracow it's unique Italian-Austrian-Polish flair.

Americans will still be in control, but they are not the occupying force anymore. The occupying force will be: Spain, Italy, Bulgaria, Romania, Albania, Lithuania and Ukraine. If i see Albanian troops in the Iraq i will die from laughing these guys can't protect their own country or enforce the law in their country now they will go abroad we are talking about a total parody.
Anyway i don't think that the UN resolution legitimizes the war. I believe it just let it pass without a comment.
The real worry is not to have Bushs brain to get a new idea in repeating this with other countries (which belong to the axis of evil) as well. :(

That's an interesting question Chandos, but I'm not sure how much the average American cares whether the legitimization happened or not, so I don't know whether its presence or absence would make any difference in the election. But, sure, it's possible. BTA,
you're perfectly right - the point is that for the average US citizen international law is far out and the nature of the UN a mystery. The US president is much closer, much more familiar. The UN for them is an alien body and met with distrust, further fueled by destructive right-wing propaganda.

It's some kind of a bitter joke: The problems of the world are globalising and the US decide that they can only meet them alone :rolleyes: only to see that this is not that easy (some may remind the stationing dispute with turkey in the prelude to the iraq war).
The "we stand alone" approach at home is even welcomed as the US seemingly are drunk for joy in face of their own firepower. But every economy has limitations and a war, costing $ 1.000.000,-- per shot, isn't something you can repeat on and on. The same applies to bribery.

After the brilliant US-voting success: Has anyone asked what price the US paid to make the others agree? Most certainly the rest of the world didn't suddenly recognise the moral superiority of the US :rolleyes: and stopped dissenting in regret.

The US were forced to make a compromise - the UN forced itself back into iraq (allowing french and russian influence and participation) and lifts the sanctions. This resolution is a french and russian success - they got out the best result possible after not beeing able to stop that war. The US wanted the UN out of iraq originally. That didn't qquite work: Now it's back in and the US celebrate a success. Oh yeah, sure :rolleyes:

Besides, the resolution didn't legitimise the war against iraq. The war, as a violation of international law, namely the UN charter, remains illegal! That, besides, was clearly expressed by the german minister Fischer.

The new resolution is mainly about how to govern post-war iraq. Nothing less, nothing more. The US had to make quite a compromise. They had to agree that the security council has to check on the success of this very resolution for further development of iraq and there is the option in it to re-establish UN inspectors in iraq.

I clearly remember Rumsfeld ranting something like "There is no role for the UN in post-war iraq!". The resolution is a "glorious defeat" for the US. Powell stating that france made a step in the right direction is a little misleading. The US were the ones to step - step back. France led. It's like dancing tango :shake:

Personally I feel sad. Sad because it is painfully apparent that today, in the western world, USA can and could do anything it pleases because there is no other country similarly powerful around to keep it in check. The whole world is obviously so dependant on USA that they can't really afford to stick with any foreign policy which contradicts that of the USA, so that even if they disagree with it, gradually they must kneel and admit that USA can play the game much longer and much more efficiently, so final total submission is just a matter of time.

I have nothing against USA, nor do I think that the Iraqi people are now worse off than they were before... Probably the situation there will get at least a bit better for the common people, but in the end there will always be someone there who will exploit the oil, and since anyone can do that well enough, it doesn't really matter does it, as long as the people benefit at least minutely.

The problem with this whole war is that it was started for a totally different reason (correction, was claimed and justified to have started for a totally different reason), which is now not even important any more. (Does anyone still even remember what it was?)

It has come down to the fact that Bush decided Saddam must be toppled, which happened. He was bad, we are good, we have no further use of him, he is dead. Not literally, but still.

So in the end the whole legitimization thing is simply a farce, nothing else. No one has the power to do anything against what USA does, so all they can do is delay their final "OK" for as long as possible. But no matter what happens, in the end they will all OK USA's actions. After all, they can't do anything against it, and it is certainly not productive to hold a grudge on someone you need. Especially since USA made it clear that they will already be punished for daring to disagree.

But as I said, in this case the whole thing is not deadly serious because at least the end result will hopefully be better, even if the whole process of getting there was simply Bush's will made happen. The question do the ends justify the means is a matter for philosophical debate, after all. But in this case it is obvious that USA made the decision on that a long time ago. What can you, me, or anyone else do about it?

Poland's history consitsts mainly in being no independent state and being divided by it's neighbouring countries (Sweden, Prussia, Austria, Russia) over and over and over again.Bad, very bad. I don't think they teach Polish history anywhere, but heh, it does belong to general Europe's history and that is taught.

Poland was divided between Russia, Prussia and Austria during the three partitions - 1772, 1793 and 1795. Several mock-independent states had been created. Poland reclaimed independence in 1918 to lose it in 1944 (communist usurpation, another mock-independent state, People's Republic of Poland, excuse my swearing) and then reclaim it again in 1989.

As the history of Poland as a state begins in 966 together with the Baptism of Mieszko, the Prince and Duke at that time, basic calculation proves that the 123 years of being partitioned constitute 12% of 1037 years total. That's not most of the time ;) Well, one could add another 80 years of de facto dependence from Russia, 5 years of Czech rulers occupying the throne (1300-1305) and a few forced vassalisations to German Emperors (revoked immediately after they left ;) ), 2 years under almost total Swedish occupation (however freed by own army with relatively small foreign reinforcements and that's all the Swedes had got from us apart from asskicking even when they otunmbered us 5 to 1) and two electors of Saxony 'chosen' as Kings (1697-1733 and 1736-1763) who behaved like the Georges of Hannover in England, but that's still like 30% even if we count periods when Poland existed as a state. Being partially or in whole under physical occupation is another thing, heh.

However, Poland does know what foreign occupation is. Hell yes, wars all the time, won 99% of them until 1795 - yes, it didn't take a war but corrupt parliament members to partition Poland. We also know how difficult it is to rise from such a condition and rebuild it all practically from scratch with about 30% population killed one way or another. That's why I don't really like to see Polish troops as occupants, simply as it is.

However, someone must keep the order there, once this Dubya's war is finally over and there's no real difference what country the soldiers are from as the job simply has to be done. From what I know they are really going to keep the order until the Iraqis finally form some government suitable for US enough to withdraw and not exercise occupant's rights and duties in practice as though they were in a conquered country. I believe it will be so, since the soldiers know their history (well, just imagine our education system :rolleyes: )...

Lol, chevalier, I actually was hoping you jump in.

Poland was divided between Russia, Prussia and Austria during the three partitions - 1772, 1793 and 1795. Several mock-independent states had been created. Poland reclaimed independence in 1918 to lose it in 1944 (communist usurpation, another mock-independent state, People's Republic of Poland, excuse my swearing) and then reclaim it again in 1989.

Yes, thanks for the detailed outline. My point still is, which you are actually supporting, it has something traditional to it, and no specific relation to the German goverment of the 30ies.

However, someone must keep the order there, once this Dubya's war is finally over and there's no real difference what country the soldiers are from as the job simply has to be done. From what I know they are really going to keep the order until the Iraqis finally form some government suitable for US enough to withdraw and not exercise occupant's rights and duties in practice as though they were in a conquered country. I believe it will be so, since the soldiers know their history (well, just imagine our education system You know what worries me the most. Taking the polish is actually a brillant idea. They have ties to Iraq, they're troops are better prepared then the Americans and a lot of Polish know the country.

That is what bothers me. The Americans have found a very able ally, while on the same time celebrating their "unliateralism". The Polish troops will, at least that's what I read, be able to do the job a lot better then the Americans. But don't expect the Americans to be thankful. The Polish have to be thankful to have been sent to Iraq, not Americans, that the Polish are trying to get the coal out of the fire for them.

Still, there is a risk, that a civil wars or an "uprising" breaks out in Iraq. Who's going to be in the frontline then ?

Probably the Polish lads :rolleyes:

Like in the war. We can't take that hill, so we have Poles go there and they do, heh.

Don't worry, we won't see many headlines in the news about X or Y soldiers from whatever country as the "brave" US/UK forces no longer required in Iraq will attack yet another helpless country (probably full of oil or natural gas, how strange) in the name of God / democracy / imperialism / free trade / self-defense (pick one). Jeez. I used to think I was cynical about Shrub's motivations, and then I started encountering Orwellian theories such as this one. There is such a thing as being too paranoid.

Tal, you're right, it is rather disturbing that the hawks never even mention WMDs now. It's even more disturbing that the supposedly liberal media here in America isn't calling them on it. It's ridiculous.

I also definitely agree with you that my nation's dominance in the international arena is a serious problem. Hey, I like my country, but one nation having so much power and influence is rather dictatorial. Sure, we're mostly a benevelent dictator, but still a dictator. (Before anyone points it out, I do realize the limitations on America's power in the world are more significant than, say, the limitations on Jong-Il's in North Korea. It's analogy. It only goes so far.)

Benevolent dictator ... :rolleyes: ... well, the last remaining superpower unfortunately is a wee bit generous with how to judge its deeds and how to judge other's deeds. For quite a lot of countries they US aren't benevolent by any means - sure, they bring freedom and democracy. Economical freedom (as long as you have money) and political freedom (as long as you don't prefer to vote for commies and islamists) ... :rolleyes:

It is a little more than just a beneviolent dictator: The US have announced to want to fight a perpetual war, over years and years and that Iraq has just been the first battle in it. Yeah, speak about fighting terror :rolleyes:

Ah yes, terrorists: Indeed, once upon a time there were a couple of people who called themselves Al-Quaida ... now we only hear about the axis of evil. This axis is naming three countries, that, in the eyes of the hawks, are on the target list for 20 years now, beeing evil "rogue states". Worse! Now the axis consists only of two countries? Who'll be filling the gap?

It's just question of time until Rumsfeld spooks see in their swoolen crystal balls that North Korea is giving it's WMDs to terrorists - I **** my pants already by only thinking about it.
Listen America! It is true that NKs missiles can't reach you - even more as you under the mighty (yet unproven) shild of our mighty, multibillion dollar National Missile Defence ... :mommy: ... but their terrorists can reach you while you sleep ... or worse: :mommy: watch football ... and take your babies away to make them braindead suicide bombers! :mommy:

Iran's humiliated the US by holding it's embassy hostage for a year or so during the revolution, worse, the mighty US were unable to rescue their people. Rumsfeld, Perle, Cheney and Wolfowitz sat in the pentagon these days. Seemingly they've never forgot that.
For their closeness to israel the neocons are also called Likudniks - so it has to be added that the iranians were financing the Hizbollah, the group that eventually managed to drive out israel ouut of lebanon - another blow for the west. Evil mullahs (http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/3442541654.03.LZZZZZZZ.jpg) will continue to spook their nightmares.

Besides, recently Bush has mentioned something like dealing with cuba ... bay of pigs galore! They want to free the (well, indeed they are) oppressed cubans from the evil whip of their commie dictator. Besides of beeing ruled authoritarian the cubans have a splendid medical system (not high tech but a good average standard) and a very high alphabetisation rate, unmatched even in the US - things they are rightfully proud of.
The cubans are indeed a threat to the southern flank, the soft underbelly of the US (even more with their reputation as hot latin lovers - lock your wives away, the cubans come!). Every cigar and every cuba libre contains a subversive commie message! There are rumours that they continue to plot evil: Seemingly they intend to flood the US marked with the RED Che Guevara coke! That cannot be tolerated! Cuba is a threat for the american way of life! They are extremely evil and highly dangerous, but hey, admittedly thay are a piece of cake militaryily ... ;) .... another glorious vioctory is closer than ever. Hmm, maybe they eventually found a worthy predecessor for Iraq.

http://www.independent.org/tii/news/030420Eland.html

Everybody needs someone to be afraid of - some more, some less :shake: The US make a policy of fear, demonising their enemies, none of them who's not at least megalomanic, otherwise insane or an 14th or 15th Hitler ... :rolleyes: ... that makes it easier to be afraid of them ... but we're getting

:yot:

Going back to Tal's post above, Bush didn't actually make up the plan to go after Iraq/Saddam. Bill CLinton did.

He signed the bill authorizing a policy of regime change in Iraq prior to leaving office.

**************************************************

Here's an interesting quote I stumbled across. I kinda liked it:

Powell Quote


When in England at a fairly large conference,
Colin Powell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury
if our plans for Iraq were just an example of
empire building by George Bush.

He answered by saying that, "Over the years, the
United States has sent many of its fine young men
and women into great peril to fight for freedom
beyond our borders. The only amount of land we
have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those
that did not return."

It became very quiet in the room.

Does the silence of a British lord legitimize wars in the Middle-East ? What had the Middle-East to do with the Second World War ?

One doesn't need any sovereignty over land to rule, economic means are enough. Or the innocent name of 'protectorate'. Whatever.

Oh, and it seems US has as many female soldiers as male ones and the traditions of hiring each gender of soldiers are equally old. Long live political correctness, heh.