It was Resolution 687 and it "Declares ... a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678."
Just wanted to know when that cease-fire was lifted, because that would have been necessary for Bush's Iraq invasion to be legal.
2007-02-16 14:44:59 · 11 answers · asked by Longhaired Freaky Person 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Moltar, the US voted for the cease-fire.
2007-02-16 14:51:06 · update #1
LeoGirl, the "deal" is off when the Security Council votes it off. So far, it hasn't. As a matter of fact, Iraq obeyed all of its requirements under the cease-fire.
2007-02-16 14:52:18 · update #2
Pancakes, which resolution lifted it?
2007-02-16 14:52:54 · update #3
sociald, the resolution you refer to came FIRST - the cease-fire ended authorization of the use of "all necessary means."
The case for illegality is iron-clad. You don't even know what you are talking about.
2007-02-16 16:00:10 · update #4
Well when the series of UN resolutions giving member states permission to use whatever means nescessary ( which includes firing ) to bring peace to the area ( Iraq ) was made.
Try as hard as you might, there is no case for an 'illegal war'
---no im talking about the one about 10 years after the one you listed. If you want to get into specifics I will go post the thing again. Oh what the hell...
Resolution 1441 at Security Council meeting 4644, 8 November 2002. This one recalled resolution 678 authorizing using any means nescessary to uphold peace. And hte only point from 687 it recalled ( the one you are quoting) is that Iraq failed to meet the obligations of resolution 687.
You dont have anything to stand on man.
2007-02-16 15:44:47 · answer #1 · answered by sociald 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Let's see if I have understood this correctly.
Iraq violates the Resolution not once but many times and that's ok, but we are still supposed to agree to abide by it?
Anyone with unbiased views would acknowledge that a treaty or contract is null and void after one side violates the terms.
The resolution states plainly (sect 33) that it will be in effect when Iraq accepts the provisions of the resolution. How hard is to understand that if Iraq violates the provisions that the cease-fire is no longer in place?
Perhaps for the clarity that some are seeking, the next time they write a cease-fire, they should spell it out that to violate the terms would then nullify the cease-fire.
2007-02-16 15:13:35 · answer #2 · answered by bkc99xx 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The no fly zones were patrolled by US and British forces and were the enforcers of the no fly zone. Case and point the US did nothing illegal.
The two no-fly zones, one in the north and another in the south of Iraq, were unilaterally created by the US, Britain and France soon after the 1991 Gulf War. Iraq was banned from using all aircraft, including helicopters, in the air exclusion zones.
Repeating the lie of illegality does not make it true.
2007-02-16 17:03:46 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
1) The UN is not a sovereign power, whereas the United States is.
2) Iraq was in violation of the ceasefire constantly. There were two no-fly zones established, to be patrolled and enforced by Coalition forces. Saddam's regime regularly shot at these patrols.
2007-02-16 15:04:39 · answer #4 · answered by Rick N 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I predicted the US to abstain from this vote and that i evaluate the circulate clever. I choose it have been a sparkling abjection with sparkling motives reported for the regularly occurring public to take heed to around the globe. we are so no longer blinded we see very for sure. No isolation right here, we are an relatively exciting inhabitants right here various of many human beings from around the globe. i understand there is not any longer something weird and wonderful approximately helping Israel and maximum individuals might think of helping the UN in the present day could be seen weird and wonderful. We evaluate Ha mas and the Palestine peoples selections very weird and wonderful. We evaluate the concentration of attacking Israel weird and wonderful. i think of the attack on the twin towers assisted those individuals who're fairly conscious of the attitudes and strikes around the globe via communities like Hamas. so which you would be able to thank al-quada and different governments and communities for our help of anti terrorism and our new child choose to guard our freedoms from the UN and those they seem to help.
2016-10-02 06:47:07 · answer #5 · answered by eilermann 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
When they get some balls and decide to enforce resolutions that they pass..... What were there like 13 after the 91 war that Iraq never obeyed? Must of been unbinding resolutions like the traitorous democrats pass.
2007-02-16 14:59:48 · answer #6 · answered by Jace 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It was lifted within a year after saddam refused to follow 14+ resolutions drafted by the UN.
How's that for legal?
2007-02-16 14:51:49 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
That cease fire was only good as long as Saddam followed the rules and didn't violate any of the UN resolutions that were in place. He violated every one of them, so the deal was off.
2007-02-16 14:50:41 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
The cease fire was never respected by Saddam since he kept firing on the planes patrolling the no-fly zone. If the first party doesn't adhere to the agreement, the other parties should not be obligated to adhere either.
2007-02-16 14:51:07 · answer #9 · answered by scarlettt_ohara 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Really? Since when does the UN control the US?
They don't.
They also don't enforce their own resolutions.
2007-02-16 14:50:04 · answer #10 · answered by MoltarRocks 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋