Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

John Kerry Says 40 Countries Have Joined Obama’s Coalition Against ISIS – But Nobody Knows Who They Are

4 posters

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Markle

Markle

My wonderful Progressive good friends such as Wordslinger, 2seaoat and others who worship at the foot of semi-retired President Barack Hussein Obama will pleased to know that he and Secretary of State John Kerry have amassed a coalition of 40 other countries. They just won't tell us who they are or what they're doing.

You just can't make these things up!

John Kerry Says 40 Countries Have Joined Obama’s Coalition Against ISIS – But Nobody Knows Who They Are


Posted by Jim Hoft on Monday, September 15, 2014, 12:08 AM

Former President George W. Bush put together a 48 member coalition for the Iraq War in 2003.
40 of those members supported military operations and 37 provided some number troops.

In April 2003, the list was updated to include 49 countries, though it was reduced to 48 after Costa Rica objected to its inclusion. Of the 48 states on the list, three contributed troops to the invasion force (the United Kingdom, Australia and Poland). An additional 37 countries provided some number of troops to support military operations after the invasion was complete.

Despite these numbers the liberal media continues to push the lie that Bush “went it alone” in Iraq.

On Sunday, John Kerry announced that nearly 40 nations have agreed to contribute to the fight against the militants. But he would not list the countries and it remains unclear what role each country will play.

Read more my Progressive good friends: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/09/john-kerry-says-40-countries-have-joined-obamas-coalition-against-isis-but-nobody-knows-who-they-are/

Guest


Guest

Of course nobody knows just like nobody knows how many people signed up for Obamacare.

2seaoat



First Gulf War coalition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_Gulf_War

Second Invasion of Iraq:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

Gee Mr. Markle........is the liberal press lying?  Or do you use partisan sites to create false equivalencies.........based on your track record, you do not even read the links.

Of the 48 countries on the list, three contributed troops to the invasion force (the United Kingdom, Australia and Poland).  ooooooops

32 countries contributed troops to the first Gulf war...........do you comprehend the difference or is that just more communist with new math.

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

Gee Mr. Markle........is the liberal press lying?  Or do you use partisan sites to create false equivalencies.........based on your track record, you do not even read the links.

John Kerry Says 40 Countries Have Joined Obama’s Coalition Against ISIS – But Nobody Knows Who They Are Laughi49

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Guest


Guest

by 2seaoat Today at 9:32 am
First Gulf War coalition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_Gulf_War

Second Invasion of Iraq:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

Gee Mr. Markle........is the liberal press lying? Or do you use partisan sites to create false equivalencies.........based on your track record, you do not even read the links.

Of the 48 countries on the list, three contributed troops to the invasion force (the United Kingdom, Australia and Poland). ooooooops

32 countries contributed troops to the first Gulf war...........do you comprehend the difference or is that just more communist with new math.
------
The UN, which is over 180 nations,
Signed off on Second war. Nuf said

Floridatexan

Floridatexan




"The UN, which is over 180 nations,
Signed off on Second war. Nuf said"

NOT TRUE...the UN refused to get involved until after the invasion, and then in a very limited role. Bush and Blair ignored the advice of the UN and invaded anyway...then tried to use the "humanitarian crisis" as a wedge to push the UN into involvement...with devastating results.

Why would you promote an outright lie?


(from 2007:)

Because the UN Security Council refused to endorse the US-UK invasion and occupation of Iraq in March 2003, Washington and London hoped to ignore the UN and operate with a free hand in the country. But a fierce Iraqi resistance, persistent economic and political problems, and continuing international criticism forced the US-UK to seek international partners for their enterprise, including assistance from the UN. A debate ensued between those who thought that the UN could be the wedge for internationalization and US-UK withdrawal and those who thought a UN presence would only discredit the world body. Following the adoption of Security Council Resolution 1483 two months after the war, then-UN Secretary General Kofi Annan appointed a Special Representative for Iraq and the UN assumed some small responsibilities there. Many critics warned, though, that the UN should not be identified with the illegal war and occupation.

In August 2003, a massive bombing of UN headquarters in Baghdad confirmed the critics' fears, killing fifteen UN staff including the Special Representative. The UN then pulled out of Iraq and kept its distance, but in February 2004, under heavy US pressure, the UN agreed to send a mission to the country, to help construct a new interim government. Again, Washington kept the UN's political role weak, while seeking legitmacy from the UN. After the establishment of an interim government in June, the US pressured the UN to take a larger role in planning national elections, but security dangers and reluctance by the Secretary General and UN staff kept the UN role to a minimum.

Now, as the situation spirals more and more out of control, Washington is citing the worsening humanitarian crisis as reason enough for the UN to step in. But critics say the US intends to use the UN to push Iraqis to accept US-imposed "benchmarks" for reconciliation, including a controversial oil law and debaathification. The new Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon, seems to be more pliant to the US and more supportive of greater UN involvement in Iraq. Despite strong opposition from the UN Staff Council – which represents 25,000 UN workers – the Security Council succumbed to US and UK pressure and voted on August 10, 2007 to expand the UN's role in Iraq. Only if the US occupation ends can there be a substantial – and politically viable – UN role.

https://www.globalpolicy.org/political-issues-in-iraq/un-role-in-iraq.html

Guest


Guest

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 (UNSCR 1441), adopted on Nov. 8, 2002 by a vote of 15-0, stated in part:
"Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorizes 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...

Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwait and third country nationals wrongly detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq...

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency], and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991)..."

Nov. 8, 2002 - UNSCR 1441 (58 KB)

2seaoat



Who put boots on the ground in the first war and the second war. The rest is hot air. Just like nobody is going to put boots on the ground this time.....they just wait for the Americans to donate blood and treasury.

Guest


Guest

As usual you can't stay on topic Seaoat. When you get stonewalled, you spin and deflect.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan


Nowhere does your post verify UN support for the unilateral attack on Iraq. That's because the UN did not support the invasion.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq

Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan

Ewen MacAskill and Julian Borger in Washington
The Guardian, Wednesday 15 September 2004 21.28 EDT

"The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal.
Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter. In an interview with the BBC World Service broadcast last night, he was asked outright if the war was illegal. He replied: "Yes, if you wish."

He then added unequivocally: "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal."..."

Guest


Guest

Lol... Illegal in the view of the un and the new world order? No matter how I was and am against military adventurism...

the military action was submitted to...and approved by congress. It also had popular support... right or wrong.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

Th Dude wrote:Lol... Illegal in the view of the un and the new world order? No matter how I was and am against military adventurism...

the military action was submitted to...and approved by congress. It also had popular support... right or wrong.

How very convenient; you are forgetting the anthrax, the untimely death of Paul Wellstone, the litany of lies told to Congress and the public, and the general mass hysteria in the wake of the "new Pearl Harbor" that occurred on September 11, 2001. You're probably also forgetting the war profiteering, the black sites and GITMO, and the sanction of torture in violation of the Geneva Conventions.

Other than that...

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

Floridatexan wrote:
Th Dude wrote:Lol... Illegal in the view of the un and the new world order? No matter how I was and am against military adventurism...

the military action was submitted to...and approved by congress. It also had popular support... right or wrong.

How very convenient; you are forgetting the anthrax, the untimely death of Paul Wellstone, the litany of lies told to Congress and the public, and the general mass hysteria in the wake of the "new Pearl Harbor" that occurred on September 11, 2001.  You're probably also forgetting the war profiteering, the black sites and GITMO, and the sanction of torture in violation of the Geneva Conventions.  

Other than that...  

The Neocons were trying to be the new 21st Century Nazis.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Guest


Guest

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:
Floridatexan wrote:
Th Dude wrote:Lol... Illegal in the view of the un and the new world order? No matter how I was and am against military adventurism...

the military action was submitted to...and approved by congress. It also had popular support... right or wrong.

How very convenient; you are forgetting the anthrax, the untimely death of Paul Wellstone, the litany of lies told to Congress and the public, and the general mass hysteria in the wake of the "new Pearl Harbor" that occurred on September 11, 2001.  You're probably also forgetting the war profiteering, the black sites and GITMO, and the sanction of torture in violation of the Geneva Conventions.  

Other than that...  

The Neocons were trying to be the new 21st Century Nazis.

The Dems beat them to it

Markle

Markle

Floridatexan wrote:
Nowhere does your post verify UN support for the unilateral attack on Iraq.  That's because the UN did not support the invasion.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq

Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan

Ewen MacAskill and Julian Borger in Washington
The Guardian, Wednesday 15 September 2004 21.28 EDT

"The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal.
Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter. In an interview with the BBC World Service broadcast last night, he was asked outright if the war was illegal. He replied: "Yes, if you wish."

He then added unequivocally: "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal."..."

Wrong again.

UN Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq

The list below is out of date. For resolutions since 2004, please see Iraqanalysis.org

The following is a complete list of Security Council Resolutions (SCRs) involving Iraq. The overwhelming majority of resolution since 1990 relate to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and subsequent developments. The resolutions deemed particularly important are indicated in bold. A full list of SCRs is available here. Guides to the SCRs relating to Iraq are maintained by the Federation of American Scientists (here) and the UN's Office of the Iraq Programme (here); a further compilation of SCRs on Iraq is maintained by Saleh Iraq site (here). The Office of the Spokesman for the Secretary-General has a brief guide to the resolutions on all the UN sanctions regimes, Use of sanctions under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.

2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 | 1999 | 1998 | 1997 | 1996 | 1995 | 1994 | 1993 | 1992 | 1991 | 1990 | pre-1990 resolutions on Iraq | Zimbabwe resolutions


2004
•US/UK draft resolution, May 2004 ◦On 23 May, the US and UK circulated a draft resolution (pdf, pdf ) to govern the transfer of power to a caretaker Iraqi government


2003
•1518 (24 November 2003) ◦Establishes a committee (the 1518 committee) to identify resources which should be transferred to the Development Fund for Iraq. This replaced some of the post-sanctions work of the '661 committee', which officially ceased to exist on 22 November 2003
◦Adopts guidelines on the interpretation of resolution 1483's requirements for transfer of resources to the Development Fund for Iraq. The guidelines have been published as SC/7791 IK/356 (12 June 2003) and SC/7831 IK/372 (29 July 2003).

•1511 (16 October 2003) (pdf version) ◦This resolution: ◾️mandates the UN to 'strengthen its vital role in Iraq' (para Cool
◾️'underscores...the temporary nature of the Coalition Provisional Authority' (para 1), welcomes the Governing Council and its ministers as "the principal bodies of the Iraqi interim administration" (para 4), and supports moves towards self-government under its auspices(para 3)
◾️invites the Governing Council to draw up, by 15 December, a timetable for drafting a constitution and holding elections, in cooperation with, and assisted by, the CPA and the UN representative (para 7 & Cool. Requests the CPA to report to the Security Council on progress towards the transfer of power (para 6)
◾️authorises a multinational security force, and urges states to contribute to it and to the reconstruction of Iraq (para 13 & 14). Requests states to contribute financially (para 20), including at a Donors Conference (para 21), by providing required resources (para 22) and by transferring assets of the former regime to the Development Fund for Iraq (para 24)
◾️Requests the Secretary General to report on UN operations in Iraq (para 12). Requests the US to report, at least every 6 months, on military matters (para 25). Decides that the Security Council should review the mission of the UN force within a year, and that its mandate will expire once power has been transferred to an Iraqi government (para 15)
◾️Reiterates the demand made in Resolution 1483 for an International Advisory and Monitoring Board to supervise administration of the Development Fund for Iraq (para 23)

◦Three earlier US drafts for this resolution were made public, on 4 September, 1 October and 13 October 2003. Postings to the CASI discussion list summarise differences between the first and second drafts, and between the second and third drafts. Amendments to the first draft were publicly proposed by France and Germany, and by Syria. Several of the Franco-German proposals were incorporated into the resolution.

•1500 (14 August 2003) ◦Establishes UN Assistance Mission for Iraq, as proposed by the Secretary General in a report on July 17
◦Welcomes creation of Governing Council

•1490 (3 July 2003) ◦Disbands the UN Iraq-Kuwait Observer Mission (UNIKOM), and removes the demilitarised zone betweeen Iraq and Kuwait. Comes into force on 6 October 2003.

•1483 (22 May 2003)
◦Lifts non-military sanctions (para 10)
◦Recognises Britain and the United States as occupying powers ('The Authority'), and calls on them to attempt to improve security and stability, and provide opportunities for the Iraqis to determine their political future. Creates position of UN Special Representative to Iraq, to coordinate UN activity. Requires establishment of Development Fund for Iraq
◦Summaries and analysis can be found on pages 10-13 of the Open Society Institute paper "Reconstructing Iraq: a guide to the issues", and in this article from the American Society of International Law. A Parliamentary research paper (2 June 2003) provides a British government perspective.
◦Initial US-UK draft (9 May)
◦Revised US-UK-Spain draft (15 May)
◦The Open Society Institute criticized aspects of this resolution, and suggested changes to allow greater supervision of the occupying powers
•1476 (24 April 2003)
•1472 (28 March 2003) ◦ Gives UN more authority to administer the "oil for food" programme for the next 45 days. Authorizes the Secretary-General to establish alternative locations for the delivery of humanitarian supplies and equipment, and proceed with approved contracts after a review to determine priorities. Other steps called for include: transferring unencumbered funds between accounts created pursuant to the programme on an exceptional and reimbursable basis to ensure the delivery of essential humanitarian supplies; and using funds deposited in the accounts to compensate suppliers and shippers for agreed additional shipping, transportation and storage costs incurred as a result of diverting and delaying shipments

•Resolution proposed by Spain, the US and the UK, which would have authorized military action against Iraq (7 March 2003) ◦Comments of Kofi Annan on 10 March, 11 March and 17 March
◦Joint statement by France, Russia and Germany in opposition to a UN resolution authorizing force
◦Statements by France and Germany (19 March)

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum