UN and Iraq

[Haggridd]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, olivier.fouquet+harry at m... 
wrote:
> I think Shaun and I have now stated our respective arguments with 
> enough clarity. For the sake of completeness, I will simply restate 
my 
> position.
> 

I assocoat myself with Shaun's analysis.  Had he not stated the 
issues so clearly and interpreted them so brilliantly, I would have 
felt compelled to weigh in myself.  On the whole I waa gratified to 
hear that persons from other countries could see the question in the 
same way I did.

> Contrary to Shaun, I keep thinking that the war as it unfold was 
> illegal. I acknowledge Shaun's rationale that shooting at aircrafts 
in 
> the no-fly zone is technically a casus belli. I am in the opinion 
that 
> the US, UK and France, as the aggressors, had to prove first that 
> flying aircrafts above Iraq was legal. If casus belli they was, I 
think 
> an argument can be made that it was on their side.
> 

Your terminology is wrong.  Iraq was the aggressor in Gulf War I.  As 
a condition of the ceaseire, the no-fly zones were created.  They are 
therefore lega, and any attack on the patrol plane is a violation of 
the ceasefire, illegal, and yes, a casus belli in its own right.


> I would like to outline one last time what my ideal situation would 
> have been. I would have liked the inspectors to be asked clearly if 
> they were in favor of invasion, limited strike (à la Desert Fox) or 
> simply continued inspections. In the case where they would have 
said 
> they were in favor of invasion, I would have liked the US and UK to 
> present a resolution clearly outlining what they were going to do, 
> including post-war situation. If France had vetoed such a 
resolution 
> (supported by the inspectors and voted by a majority of the 
Security 
> Council that is), I would have been the first to call it a shame.
> 
> However, what happened is so far away from my ideal world, that I 
must 
> confess I have some doubts about the real motivations of the 
invading 
> forces. Doubts I think many people share and that render the whole 
> discussion about whether the war was or wasn't legal a bit surreal.
> 
> But it is always a pleasure to listen to educated arguments. If 
only 
> for that reason, I would like to thank Shaun for this discussion.
> 

Rather than indulge in innuendo, it woud be helpful if you were to 
spell out what you believe the "real motivations" were.  It is 
impossible to make an argument-- educated or otherwise-- without 
knowing your position.  

Haggridd
> Regards,
> Olivier