I agree with the gist of your post, but may I ask what you'd consider to be middle ground vis a vis Iraq? I know many (I'm one myself) who would've been in favour of the war if it had had UN approval. I always thought of that as middle ground.

That's still taking a position - I agree it's not as black and white as I made in the post for the sake of the argumenet. Nevertheless, why did you say it would only be OK with UN approval? The reasoning is the same - was it researched, or was it because that's what the great and good said was right? There are some who argue the UN didn't need to approve because Iraq had violated earlier resolutions.

The idea is the same - our ideas are fixed, often on impulse, and we need to be aware how it's done.

Any opinion is a position. It's impossible not to have a position.

Personally, I thought it would be okay with UN approval because while Saddamm needed getting rid of, to do so without UN approval would be unnecessarily divisive given that he posed no immediate threat, and send the wrong message to the international community. I have never understood the argument that 'the UN didn't need to approve because Iraq had violated earlier resolutions'. Didn't need to by what standard?

As I said, though, I agree with the gist of what you're saying. Now I just need to figure out if I'm agreeing because of who's saying it or what's being said. ;)

Nicholas - the UN didn't need to give further approval according to the wording of the previous resolutions. So according to the UN, the UN didn't need to give further approval.

Of course, they changed their minds. :)

When I was young and pig-headed, about pretty much everything, my mother's stock retort was "don't confuse me with facts my mind is made up". I'm so glad things have changed... I'm no longer young.

Glad to hear Ubul is doing swimmingly well. Literally.

But a war approved by the UN wouldn't have been the same war. Weren't you speaking of middle-ground on "this" war? I see middle-ground to be something like "I'm against war in general, but I can see why this one was necessary" or "I think we should have gone to war but I think we would have been better off waiting a little longer to see if more proof surfaced."

Pixy yet again proves he's the smart one around here. The whole fuss about getting UN approval was simply good diplomacy on the French, German and Russian's part, because earlier resolutions clearly stated the UN gave approval to using all necessary means to ensure Sadaam complied.

Bigdocmcd points out the middle ground is a tricky concept too. My point was that people take positions based on gut reactions, rather than finding out the facts and then judging where they stand. They may come to the same conclusion, but they may not. I certainly know my views on Iraq, for example, are different for knowing the background and facts.

Paul - thanks for the good wishes. My mother never even used to say that. We lived in a democracy, where her voted counted for much more than anyone elses. Couldn't argue with that - she was the Supreme Court too!

Simon, Simon, Simon.

The original UN resolution did not give authority for an attack on Iraq. It's not immediately obvious because of the coded language used in UN resolutions, but if it had really authorized an attack it would never have been approved by the Security Council.

Chris Chris Chris:

I recommend you look here and in particular resolution 1441 from November 8th, 2002. Sorting through the guff, there are two key parts to note (with my emphasis):

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all
necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August
1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore
international peace and security in the area

and

Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that
it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its
obligations

The two emphasised parts are accepted diplomatic talk for war. The resolution was adopted unamimously by the Security Council. The US and UK agreed to try and secure post-war approval as a confirmation of this earlier resolution and that was vetoed. However this resolution is clear already.

Pixy and Simon: But who did it authorise the war to be conducted by? Surely the UN itself, under UN auspices, and not just any member state or states who decided to enforce it on their own initiative.

bigdocmcd: How is wanting to wait and see if more proof surfaces a more 'middle ground' stand than wanting the war under UN auspices?

I think Nicholas is right. The key point was that if Iraq didn't comply the matter should be passed back to the Security Council to decide what to do.

France, Russia and China, which provided the critical votes to pass the Resolution, issued a statement upon its enactment that "Resolution 1441...excludes an automaticity in the use of force" and that only the Security Council has the ability to respond to a misstep by Iraq. Mexico's Ambassador was explicit in casting his country's vote for the resolution. He stressed that the use of force is only valid as a last resort, "with the prior, explicit authorization of the Security Council."

Here is an article that attempts to explain the difference between "all necessary means" (which means war) and "face serious consequences" (which doesn't).

I think Nicholas is right.

You know, the world would be a better place if people would just say that more often. ;)

Doesn't "Member States" imply any States that are members of the UN?

I think in this case the problem is not that they have found out that there reasons were wrong, but rather that these were never truly their reasons. War leaders get the benefit of concentration being diverted away from the domestic problems [OK, long term didn't work this time] and it was costing the US a lot of money to keep a large force on alert in an area where there welcome was being quickly eroded. I am not really sure where I stand on the war but I am confident that it had very little to do with WMD and a lot more to do with oil than caring for the people of Iraq. I am also sure that France and Russia's reasons for not wanting the war had less to do with doubts over the need for a regime change and more to do with their contracts with the same regime.

The world does need policeman and they can't afford to be neutered or controlled by the greed of individual countries. Until then, is it best to have no policeman (or one that does nothing) or one that only acts when in its own self interest - is it better to have a corrupt cop or none at all?

Sorry...drifted off topic and well to the right.

bijai: Doesn't "Member States" imply any States that are members of the UN?

You're telling me that the resolution authorised any member state, acting on its own initiative, to invade Iraq at will if it didn't comply? I'm sorry, I do not believe you.

When the UN refers to member states in resolutions like this, it's pretty clear they mean primarily the veto members of the Security Council. In thend approximately 30 countries have been a part of the Iraqi war, so I'd say a reasonable proportion of member states did take action.

I agree that the best situation would have been for the US to get UN approval for their actions. They tried to, twice, and got knocked back. But that doesn't mean the US wasn't right in following through with what they did. The UN is pretty toothless as it is - if Iraq got away with ignoring the resolutions again (and this wasn't the first time; they'd played cat and mouse since 1991) what message would that give to other potentially rogue states?

Lybia gave up its program post-Iraq, Syria's starting to change it's tune, even Iran seems to be moderating in its own bizarre way. What we all need to worry about is North Korea. That mob are one big problem waiting to explode. Hopefully not literally.