But its decision was enforced. UN Res 687 required weapons inspectors to destroy or render harmless Iraq's arsenal of wmd's which was achieved by the late Dr David Kelly on location between 1991 - 1998. Since he achieved the UN's objective there was nothing left to enforce. What the US did while all the world looked on in incredulity was attempt to enforce the unenforceable - just about the most idiotic adventure in foreign affairs that anyone could remember.

km

In this case I was thinking more about the obvious lack of UN support for the invasion itself and that a resolution specifically supporting an invasion failed miserably. I'm my view the Iraq invasion was in direct contravention of the will of the UN ... but perhaps that's a poor example since that was more of a case of the UN's inability to enforce its opposition to an action -- a "non-resolution" if you will -- rather than that of failing to be able to enforce an edict passed by the SC ...

Probably Israel's ability to flagrantly disregard UN resolutions with little or no meaningful consequence is a better example of what I'm talking about ...

I'd love to see all of that happen, but have doubts they way things are currently set-up at the UN that much, if any of it, will ...

For one: the US still has veto power.

Right Llewelyn
I,ll post this again since it seemed to miss some people



1 - Israel "intent" is Hamas targets and weapon storage facilities lawful targets by the definition = collateral damage which is not unlawful <-- However who decides what is excessive ? ? and I don't see the use of precision guided munitions either but still their "intent" is military targets Hamas.

2 - Hamas "intent" in relation to firing rockets is to summarily execute civilians , since there is no specific target or a military target = murder

Another missed used word is "Occupation"



In short by the legal definition there is NO occupation of Palestinian land

1 - Gaza Strip is controlled by "Hamas" which was elected .. Keep in mind that since 2005 there is no Israeli boots in Gaza

2 - West Bank is controlled by "Fatah" .. However Israel does have a small force in the West Bank and oddly the West Bank is relatively quiet compared to Gaza who does not have a Israeli force stationed inside its boarders .. Fatah and Hamas are bitter rivals with Fatah being the more moderate of the two - ever heard of there can only be one president at a time ?

The convolution;
Israel does control the airspace , the shipping lanes and the boarders of both Gaza and the West Bank .. Simply the Palestinians are not free to come and go as they please and to have free trade for goods and services <-- but this is not occupation the better word would be "Oppression" ..

a - Israel intent;
Is to control Hamas and Fatah ability to gain , tanks , heavy artillery and more larger and sophisticated rockets and missiles ..

b - Hamas intent;
IS more open boarders and free trade and that would be a good for the peace process - However Hamas did demonstrate by the use of digging tunnels into Egypt to ferret into Gaza , rockets , mortars , ammunition . So what would have happened if there was free trade ? Simply Israel don't want to give them to much rope , but is it right ?

We all know that nations on the SC can veto action necessary to discourage genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. When the victims of those crimes retaliate for want of due process with acts intended to deter repetition the fault for that backlash lies with the nation making irresponsible use of the veto. A nation that can see nothing wrong in such appalling crimes can't really complain when similar debauchery is visited upon themselves.

km

Until the UN and the SC "small arm of the UN" can effectively enforce its "will" .. Please stop reinforcing a Paper Tiger that means obsoletely NOTHING ..

You missed the point, carp... the SC can and does enforce its will and did so in the manner I've illustrated in relation to Sadam, Kosovo, and Afghanistan for example.

When the UNSC declines to inhibit genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity by reason of a nation exercising the veto then it's the nation not the UN that's to blame for the consequences. Since the veto isn't always abused I believe you must logically concede that the UN does NOT mean "absolutely NOTHING".

Oh alright then, the UN means absolutely nothing so Res 181 and Israel don't exist... everyone made a mistake apart from Hamas and carp...

km

Ah, but using force to recover your own land is not provocation is it - not by our standards. Applying a different standard to Arabs is a racist position. Oh, and the Palestinians are entitled to ALL of the land back, not some of it as you tried to suggest earlier.

km