Iraq war because of UN resolutions?

[Zarxrax]

Ron Paul keeps saying one of the reasons we went into Iraq was to enforce UN resolutions. As I recall though, wasn't the UN against us going into Iraq? Can someone clear this up for me?

 

[nickcoons]

Ron Paul keeps saying one of the reasons we went into Iraq was to enforce UN resolutions. As I recall though, wasn't the UN against us going into Iraq? Can someone clear this up for me?

I believe that one of the UN's resolutions was that Iraq was not allowed to have weapons of mass destruction. One of the reasons we went into Iraq was to enforce that.

 

[ProtusMose]

I believe that one of the UN's resolutions was that Iraq was not allowed to have weapons of mass destruction. One of the reasons we went into Iraq was to enforce that.

Exactly. In the mid-90s, Iraq provided to the UN a list of all their biological, chemical, and other naughty weapons. The UN ordered them to destroy them and set a timetable and evidence reporting requirements to do so. When that time frame started nearing its end, the US and the UN came back to Iraq for an update, who then replied with, "Uhm, yeah, we got rid of all that stuff. We didn't document anything and we can't prove we did anything with it. Just trust us, we don't have them anymore." The UN didn't want to take action yet, and kept extending the time line, so Bush decided to take it into his own hands. How nice of him to bypass Congress in doing so.

 

[Sir VotesALot]

We went into Iraq to make Israel more secure.

 

[Zarxrax]

So in a sense... Bush wasn't really "enforcing" UN resolutions, but rather just using them as an excuse?

 

[cjhowe]

Please see
U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441
http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=S/RES/1441 (2002)&Lang=E&Area=UNDOC
U.N. Security Council Resolution 1443
http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=S/RES/1443 (2002)&Lang=E&Area=UNDOC
U.N. Security Council Resolution 1447
http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=S/RES/1447 (2002)&Lang=E&Area=UNDOC
U.N. Security Council Resolution 1451
http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=S/RES/1451 (2002)&Lang=E&Area=UNDOC
U.N. Security Council Resolution 1454
http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=S/RES/1454 (2002)&Lang=E&Area=UNDOC

 

[Corydoras]

So in a sense... Bush wasn't really "enforcing" UN resolutions, but rather just using them as an excuse?

Well, that's the crux of the matter, isn't it? Legal experts disagree.

Here's the best article I've found that lays out the disagreements.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/law/2003/0321illegal.htm

 

[Corydoras]

The foremost legal scholar who said that the Iraq War was not merely authorized but basically mandated by UN resolutions was Ruth Wedgwood, who by the way is not only CFR and SAIS but also an advisor to Giuliani.

Unfortunately, everything she writes or says is in convoluted legalese, but still, she's worth reading about 687, 678, and 1441.

This is a long interview but very good:
http://echochamberproject.com/wedgwood

This is an old-fashioned case, to my mind, of making good on Security Council commitments. And to me the lesson of the 90s -- and this is something that transcends left and right and liberal and conservative -- is that too often the council has been feckless: feckless in Bosnia, feckless in Rwanda, never makes good on its pledges or its mandates -- Makes promises it can't keep. Often beguiles people to relying upon it -- as in the safe areas in Bosnia -- and then leads them like lambs to the slaughter -- That the UN's greatest problem has been a lack of credibility, that it means what it says. That when push comes to shove, it still seems to always prefer to suppose that rational, Habermasian discourse can take care of every problem -- and certainly that should be used and explored. But in the real world with a lot of societies that are self-selecting for thugs, that kind of rational action doesn't get you very far. So to my mind, this was about vindicating 687, vindicating the absolute conditions of the ["serxes" ??? "ceasefire"] of the original Gulf War.

 

[pdavis]

From House Joint Resolution 114 or the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002":

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized to use the
Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary
and appropriate in order to—
(1) defend the national security of the United States against
the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.

 

[han_solo]

The UN Security council just LAST WEEK voted to "extend the U.S.-led multinational force in Iraq for one year"

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYsrnLSjB1jHUki1IDvcQuFBzvRQD8TK49Q00

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously Tuesday to extend the U.S.-led multinational force in Iraq for one year, a move that Iraq's prime minister said would be his nation's "final request" for help.

Authorization for the 160,000-strong multinational force was extended until the end of 2008 because "the threat in Iraq continues to constitute a threat to international peace and security," according to the resolution.

U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad formally introduced the resolution Tuesday afternoon and soon after the council met to approve it.

After the vote, Khalilzad cited "positive developments in Iraq" including reduced violence. He welcomed the council's support for the Iraqi government's desire "to sustain this momentum" and keep the force in the country.

The resolution requires a review of the mandate at the request of the Iraqi government or by June 15, 2008. It reiterates a provision of past resolutions that the council "will terminate this mandate earlier" if Iraq requests that.

It also says the Security Council would have to consider Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's request, in a letter on Dec. 7 to the Security Council's president, that "this is to be the final request ... for the extension of the mandate" for the U.S.-led force.

In Baghdad, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari told reporters Tuesday that "there has been a great deal of progress" thanks to the joint efforts of Iraqis and the multinational force."

"These gains are really very significant. We see them in the streets of Baghdad in many provinces. This needs to be pressed on," said Zebari, according to a transcript provided by the U.S. State Department in Washington.

A little over a year ago, the Security Council voted unanimously to extend the force's mandate through 2007.

 

[Swmorgan77]

It's right in the text of the authorization for the use of force. There were two objectives cited. One was the need to enforce United Nations resolutions.

You're right though that the U.N. itself voted against sending troops in, so they just used their puppet military force, the United States to do it.