Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Latest Breaking News

joshcryer

(62,536 posts)

3. Yeah, but it lacked "all necessary means," which a Chapter 7 clause would have.

Reply to cosmicone (Reply #2)

Fri Sep 27, 2013, 01:07 AM

Sep 2013

In particular the UN said it shall "remain seized of the matter." Meaning to do anything with force would require the US to go back to the UN to request permission. Which is what Powell did in his embarrassing display to the world.

Bush believed he was "still at war" with Iraq, with the NFZ that was in place, and therefore could "resume hostilities" at whim because Saddam, without firing a shot, "violated the ceasefire."

edit: erm, sorry, I partially repeated what you said, you noted the "all necessary means" bit. Sorry.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

5 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

U.N. Members Agree on Syria Disarmament [View all] Purveyor Sep 2013 OP

Very much like Resolution 1441 that Bush claimed enabled the Iraq war. joshcryer Sep 2013 #1

Except that this resolution doesn't contain the "serious consequences" clause cosmicone Sep 2013 #2

Yeah, but it lacked "all necessary means," which a Chapter 7 clause would have. joshcryer Sep 2013 #3

Well, it's good that it justifies neither force nor sanctions. David__77 Sep 2013 #4

Very good. /nt Ash_F Sep 2013 #5