Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
ace, over 30 countries were a part of the multinational force that took part in the Iraq War. How many of these countries did the U.S. get authorization from to invade Iraq? What resolution did they draft up and sign?
|
There was no UN resolution. However, the implication of a unilateral invasion to me suggests that the US without any prior knowledge of any other nation arbitrarily invaded Iraq. As I recall United Kingdom troops were actively involved in the invasion planning and involved in military action from day 1. I also recall Canada being made aware that military action was going to occur and that the US received the "blessing" of the Canadian Prime Minister even though Canada would not officially declare war without a UN resolution.
The US debated the issue publicly in Congress, authorization was approved for all the world to see. In addition behind the scenes the US had the support of over 30 nations going into the invasion.
Quote:
The US has named 30 countries which are prepared to be publicly associated with the US action against Iraq.
The state department says more countries have now announced concrete support for a possible US invasion of Iraq than during the first Gulf War.
And it says that there are an additional 15 countries which are providing assistance, such as over-flight rights, but which do not want to declare support.
We now have a coalition of the willing that includes some 30 nations
US Secretary of State Colin Powell
"I hope that they will all be able to do everything that is possible within their means to support the coalition militarily, diplomatically, politically and economically," US Secretary of State Colin Powell said.
The list includes countries which are providing troops, over-flight or basing rights, logistical support or assistance with reconstruction efforts.
But the state department admits that only a few of these countries are providing any major military presence in the Gulf, notably Britain and Australia.
|
BBC NEWS | Americas | US names 'coalition of the willing'
Quote:
|
Now you're comparing Canada's minor role of providing surveillance and communications, shipping security, military planning, and limited airspace (some of which may or may not be directly attributed to support of the Iraq War) to the roles played by these 30+ nations who actually went into Iraq at the time (and those who still remain).
|
I was not comparing, I was pointing out something I don't understand. Canada's role could have been to take a stand against a unilateral invasion. the stance could have been to insist that the US get a UN resolution. Canada could have stood with some who condemned the US and Bush for the invasion. They did not. They were aware of the invasion before it occurred, they endorsed it in a passive manner, they participated, and they wanted credit for their participation.
I don't get it.
Quote:
|
This is confusing because I don't know what it has to do with comparing the Iraq War to the Libya no-fly zone.
|
You would need to read the entire thread to understand why the issue of Iraq came up in this context. At some point I was told I held a double standard. I do not.
Quote:
|
Are you suggesting that even Canada was at fault for not operating under a U.N resolution? Well, fine.
|
In my view UN resolutions are virtually worthless. Fault is not a word I would use in this context.
Quote:
|
But let's stay on topic. We can debate the legitimacy of the invasion of Iraq in another thread. The issue remains the same: comparing the invasion of Iraq to the no-fly zone in Libya isn't very helpful unless you want to use it, in part, as a justification for the U.N. resolution.
|
My position in this thread has been repeated several times in several ways - Obama's actions and words regarding Libya lack clarity. There are historical political and military actions that support my point, including the invasion of Iraq.
---------- Post added at 09:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:39 PM ----------
I re-read Bush's speech to the UN months prior to the invasion. I can not see how the US taking military action surprised anyone.
Quote:
My nation will work with the U.N. Security Council on a new resolution to meet our common challenge. If Iraq's regime defies us again, the world must move deliberately and decisively to hold Iraq to account. The purposes of the United States should not be doubted. The Security Council resolutions will be enforced — the just demands of peace and security will be met — or action will be unavoidable. And a regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power.
Events can turn in one of two ways.
If we fail to act in the face of danger, the people of Iraq will continue to live in brutal submission. The regime will have new power to bully, dominate and conquer its neighbors, condemning the Middle East to more years of bloodshed and fear. The region will remain unstable, with little hope of freedom and isolated from the progress of our times. With every step the Iraqi regime takes toward gaining and deploying the most terrible weapons, our own options to confront that regime will narrow. And if an emboldened regime were to supply these weapons to terrorist allies, then the attacks of September 11th would be a prelude to far greater horrors.
If we meet our responsibilities, if we overcome this danger, we can arrive at a very different future. The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world. These nations can show by their example that honest government, and respect for women, and the great Islamic tradition of learning can triumph in the Middle East and beyond. And we will show that the promise of the United Nations can be fulfilled in our time.
Neither of these outcomes is certain. Both have been set before us. We must choose between a world of fear and a world of progress. We cannot stand by and do nothing while dangers gather. We must stand up for our security, and for the permanent rights and hopes of mankind. By heritage and by choice, the United States of America will make that stand. Delegates to the United Nations, you have the power to make that stand as well.
|
Text Of Bush Iraq Speech To U.N. - CBS News
I think there is even a legal principle that may apply regarding the invasion of - constructive knowledge. So, to say the US acted unilaterally seems to be weak at best but actually simply not true.