D
dave arc-i
Guest
Meijin said:Dave Arc1 wrote:
'Lets not forget that Kuwait was created as a result of broken promise's by the UK government (amongst others) after the end of WW1. How much trouble has that led too?'
Problem is when Iraq signed up to the UN in the late '50s/early '60s it agreed to the sovereignty of Kuwait (Kuwait already being a member), therefore, Iraq had accepted the sovereignty of Kuwait. So, when the invasion of '91 happened it was actually legitimate for the UN powers to get Iraq out of Kuwait
Then Saddam takes power in Iraq - decides he's isn't up for it any longer - and here we are today!
I was only making the general point of the origin of a problem in context with another similar problem or situation.
I wouldn't deny the validity of of the UN resolutions that led to the removal of the Iraqi's from Kuwait.
Whilst on the subject of UN resolutions I would draw attention to this one.
UNSCR 678 29th November 1990
Iraq must comply fully with UNSCR 660 (regarding Iraq's illegal invasion of Kuwait) "and all subsequent relevant resolutions."
Authorizes UN Member States "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."
Not being an expert in international law BUT to my layman's eye's this gives full authority to actually remove Saddam from power under the black and white terms as highlighted above.
In fact the above is highly relevant to the now less than satisfactory situatiuon within Iraq as a result of a less than clear further resolution
Resolution 1441, drafted and accepted unanimously the year before the invasion, threatened "serious consequences" to Iraq in case Iraq did not comply with all conditions. Russia, People's Republic of China, and France made clear in a joint statement that this did not authorize the use of force but a further resolution was needed. Until a few days before the war, it was the position of the UK, the main US ally in the war, that a further resolution would be desirable before the UK would go to war.
There exists controversy on the question of whether the US intervention broke international law. The Bush administration thinks that the UN Security Council Resolutions authorizing the 1991 invasion, in addition to Resolution 1441, gave legal authority to use "…all necessary means…", which is diplomatic code for going to war.
This was the language of resolution 678 and WMD non-compliance was needed to show that Iraq was in breach of resolution 660 to use that later resolution as a legal basis for invasion and war in 2003.
But I found this to be a good place to start referencing from if you really want to go into the rights and wrongs of it all, but before we go way way off topic it's still not right for soldiers to shoot unarmed 13 year old children any more than it is for a dictator to poison gas people either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq