ISIS Reportedly Demolishes Second Ancient Site

Hatra_ruinsFlag_of_the_Islamic_State.svgIslamic State militants have continued their scorched earth campaign to wipe out anything considered non-Islamic. After destroying art and artifacts in the Mosul Museum and then the priceless ruins at Nimrud, ISIS is now destroying the ruins of the large fortified city at Hatra, one the capital of the first Arab kingdom. The site has withstood attacks since 116 with the Romans, but ISIS is using modern explosives and bulldozes to eradicate the 2000-year-old site.

Hatra is located 68 miles southwest of the city of Mosul, was a large fortified city the flourished during the Parthian Empire and was capital of the first Arab kingdom. Hatra was probably built in the 3rd or 2nd century BC. ISIS views such sites as promoting idolatry and departing from the true Islamic faith.

ISIS continues to destroy the very culture and history of the Arab people. It is also the history of civilization — an area that is properly called the cradle of civilization as humanity began to take great strides in medicine, mathematics, and other areas. ISIS however demands blind obedience and seeks to destroy any other values or viewpoints other than its form of Islamic orthodoxy.

86 thoughts on “ISIS Reportedly Demolishes Second Ancient Site”

  1. mustardseed:

    Eric,

    Three words. Yellow Cake Uranium.

    We were deceived into going to war in Iraq. You want to invade that country for gassing it’s citizens? Say so. Don’t claim they’re responsible for 911, because that’s a lie.

    Three administrations did “say so” for over a decade from the Gulf War through Operations Desert Fox and Iraqi Freedom.

    Saddam’s “clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere” (Clinton) was “the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security” (UNSCR 1441).

    It’s plainly stated in the law and policy of the Gulf War ceasefire, established at the outset and re-established through to the end, that the casus belli – the trigger for enforcement – was Iraq’s noncompliance with the UNSCR 660-series resolutions.

    Public Law 105-235, August 31, 1998:

    Whereas Iraq’s continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threaten vital United States interests and international peace and security: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations, and therefore the President is urged to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.

    President Clinton, announcing Operation Desert Fox, December 16, 1998:

    I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq’s own commitments. … I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning. … Saddam has failed to seize the chance. And so we had to act, and act now.

    Public Law 107-243, October 16, 2002:

    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.

    President Bush, address to the UN General Assembly, 12SEP02:

    If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material[,] … immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions[,] … cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi’a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions[,] …
    The Security Council resolutions will be enforced — the just demands of peace and security will be met — or action will be unavoidable.

    UN Security Council Resolution 1441, November 8, 2002:

    Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance, …
    … Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 …
    … Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council;

    As I said upthread, the condition overlooked in the discourse on OIF is the intelligence could be off the mark and Saddam could be guilty of the material breach that triggered enforcement at the same time because the “governing standard of Iraqi compliance” (UNSCR 1441) was set by the UNSCRs, not the intelligence.

    First, there was no claim made that Saddam was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Rather, the 9/11 attacks heightened the threat consideration of Saddam’s own “primary” (9/11 Commission) terrorist network that also overlapped al Qaeda’s terrorist network.

    Second, President Clinton’s reaction to the African yellowcake controversy sums it up (CNN interview with Larry King, July 3, 2003):

    KING: President, maybe I can get an area where you may disagree. Do you join, President Clinton, your fellow Democrats, in complaining about the portion of the State of the Union address that dealt with nuclear weaponry in Africa?

    CLINTON: Well, I have a little different take on it, I think, than either side.

    First of all, the White House said — Mr. Fleischer said — that on balance they probably shouldn’t have put that comment in the speech. What happened, often happens. There was a disagreement between British intelligence and American intelligence. The president said it was British intelligence that said it. And then they said, well, maybe they shouldn’t have put it in.

    Let me tell you what I know. When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for. … I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say you got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don’t cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions.

    I mean, we’re all more sensitive to any possible stocks of chemical and biological weapons. So there’s a difference between British — British intelligence still maintains that they think the nuclear story was true. … I thought the White House did the right thing in just saying, Well, we probably shouldn’t have said that.

    Why was Clinton shrugging it off at the same time that other Democrats were blowing it out of proportion?

    Because, having been the chief enforcer of the Gulf War ceasefire, Clinton understood that enforcement was not triggered by the intelligence, and certainly not by one piece of intelligence misrepresented out of context of the Gulf War ceasefire. The yellowcake was not cited as casus belli and it was not the only indicator of renewed nuclear activity by Iraq. It was cited to highlight the importance of, as Clinton reiterated, Saddam proving compliance with the “governing standard of Iraqi compliance” (UNSCR 1441) for disarmament mandated by UNSCR 687.

    Note that Clinton cited, “When I left office, there a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for,” which was consistent with the principal trigger for OIF, the UNMOVIC finding of “about 100 unresolved disarmament issues” (Cluster Document) in the UNSCR 1441 inspections. UNMOVIC’s findings only tangentially touched on the nuclear mandates because the nuclear mandates were covered by IAEA inspectors, not UN inspectors.

    You’re correct that you’ve been deceived about Operation Iraqi Freedom. You just haven’t realized yet that it wasn’t the President(s) who deceived you.

    Fortunately, setting the record straight is simple. Read the primary sources of OIF to learn the truth of the matter for yourself. At minimum, read the basic essentials identified in my comment to davidm2575 at March 11, 2015 at 5:55 pm.

    The first step is learning the “governing standard of Iraqi compliance” that set the bar for enforcement with Iraq. I suggest starting with the cornerstone resolutions of the Gulf War ceasefire: UNSCRs 687 and 688.

  2. Mustardseed
    …. I did clarify that I was responding to Doug Nasbaum’s comment….It was specifically his comments about the importance of understanding an enemy before committing troops to combat, and his questioning our vulnerability to future attacks like 9-11.
    Again, my apologies for initially identifying those comments as “Mustardseed’s”, not Mr.Nusbaum’s.
    As to your theory that the real force behind Gulf War II was a plot by a few select corporations for profits, you are probably correct about my not being “open minded”.
    I saw too many other, real factors that led to Gulf War II. I don’t dismiss the influence of any lobbying group, but I can’t point to contractors or armaments manufacturers as the deciding force for launching ANY U.S. war.

  3. Eric,

    Three words. Yellow Cake Uranium.

    We were deceived into going to war in Iraq. You want to invade that country for gassing it’s citizens? Say so. Don’t claim they’re responsible for 911, because that’s a lie.

    David,

    Any other time the government issues a report, you claim it’s untrue. The number of lies and examples of disingenuous claims that you’ve made on this blog have earned you the reputation you deserve. Nobody makes logic look like a gymnastic routine like you do.

  4. Tom Nash,

    Nothing in my statements reflects a flippant, casual attitude toward the dangers posed by terrorism. Whatever it is you think you see in my remarks is more reflective of your own attitudes, particularly with regard to dissenting opinions.

    For the record, these recorded acts of violence by the terrorists are actually staged to keep us revved up and involved militarily in the Middle East.

    Witness one of the recent threats made by terrorists against malls in this country just as House Republicans were threatening to let DHS funding expire if the authorization didn’t include a provision to overturn Obama’s immigration policy. The timing couldn’t have been more propitious for an expeditious passage of a clean bill, coming a week to ten days before funding was to run out. If the terrorists really wanted to create a vulnerability in our defenses, they would have kept their mouths shut as the idiots in Congress took aim at our feet, so to speak.

    I suspect our corporate “citizens” have more influence in the Middle East than is healthy for our country, particularly with those involved in terrorism. The science of behaviorlism would have an easy time figuring out how to manipulate our fears with the type of spectacle we’re seeing to sway the outcome of elections and ensure our ongoing military commitments in the region. IOW, we’re being played.

    But I could be wrong, as you are in whatever it is you think you see reflected in my remarks. Difference is, I have an open mind about it, and that makes me infinitely stronger than you.

  5. davidm2575: “Eric, I always appreciate your many well informed comments on this subject. They really help put things in proper perspective.”

    Thanks.

    Like I said to mustardseed, the only thing that sets me apart from anyone else on this issue is I’ve read the primary sources for myself. It’s not arcane stuff. They provide a straightforward explanation for the ‘why’ of OIF.

    Anyone can learn the law and policy, fact basis of Operation Iraqi Freedom – the sources are free and easily accessible on-line. These are the basic essentials to understand the ‘why’ of OIF (the same paragraph with 18 links is here):

    The decision for Operation Iraqi Freedom was right on the law and justified on the policy, yet distorted in the politics, despite that primary sources easily accessed on-line provide a straightforward explanation of the mission. Basic essential sources for understanding OIF in the proper context include the 1990-2002 UNSC resolutions for Iraq (at minimum, see UNSCRs 687, 688, and 1441), Public Law 107-243 (the 2002 Congressional authorization for use of military force against Iraq), Public Law 105-235 (“Iraqi Breach of International Obligations”, 14AUG98), President Clinton’s December 1998 letter to Congress on the legal authority for Operation Desert Fox, February 1998 warning on Iraq to Pentagon personnel, and December 1998 announcement of ODF (the penultimate military enforcement step that set the baseline precedent for OIF), President Bush’s September 2002 background paper and remarks to the United Nations General Assembly and excerpts from the 2003 State of the Union, the March 2003 statement of the Atlantic Summit, the April 2002 UN Commission on Human Rights situation report on Iraq pursuant to UNSCR 688, the November 2007 Iraqi Perspectives Project (“Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents”) report pursuant to UNSCR 687, the March 2003 UNMOVIC Cluster Document (“Unresolved Disarmament Issues Iraq’s Proscribed Weapons Programmes”, summary) pursuant to UNSCR 687 that triggered the final decision for OIF, and the Iraq Survey Group Duelfer Report.

  6. mustardseed:

    Clinton gave the go ahead to anybody wanting to create a coup against Saddam Hussein.”

    ******************

    Everyone but the US military, that is.

    That’s true only if you don’t consider USAF and USN aviators and US Special Forces to be US military. Operation Desert Fox was carried out by US military. ODF was a precursor of Obama’s strategy for the Libya regime change. The targets in ODF were not limited to suspected WMD sites. ODF targeted a range of military infrastructure with the intent to weaken the regime, not just set back Saddam’s WMD program.

    Context:

    For over a decade, the chief enforcer of the Gulf War ceasefire did everything it could to compel Iraq’s compliance short of resuming the Gulf War. The Operation Desert Fox bombing in December 1998 used up the penultimate enforcement measure to drive Saddam to comply. The ad hoc ‘containment’ that followed ODF was, in effect, a euphemism for the failed enforcement of Iraq’s compliance. President Clinton conveyed the Gulf War ceasefire enforcement to President Bush with the strategy of indefinitely ‘containing’ Saddam’s “clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere” (Clinton) while actively and openly working to overthrow Saddam’s regime pursuant to the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, at the same time “stand[ing] ready to help a new leadership in Baghdad that abides by its international commitments” (Clinton) pursuant to section 7 of Public Law 105-338. By 2001, however, the ‘containment’ of Saddam was evidently failing, if it ever worked at all. Then the 9/11 attacks shifted the threat calculation for the practically uncontained Saddam with increased focus on Iraq’s violation of the terrorism mandates of UNSCR 687.

    It’s true that Clinton didn’t invade Iraq with ground forces. However, Clinton set the stage for Operation Iraqi Freedom by establishing the law and policy basis for regime change and practically clearing the penultimate step with Operation Desert Fox. The key to PL 105-338, carried forward from PL 105-235, is the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 established that the solution for the threat of Saddam’s noncompliance was US-assisted regime change and US-led peace operations to “bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations” (P.L. 105-235).

    Upon the failure of ODF, the threat of regime change by ground invasion was the only enforcement measure remaining to drive Saddam to comply. Saddam’s terrorism was prolific. The sanctions-based ‘containment’, by definition, was not bringing Iraq into compliance and was evidently failing as containment. The no-fly zones were not stopping Saddam’s “systematic, widespread and extremely grave violations of human rights and of international humanitarian law … resulting in an all-pervasive repression and oppression sustained by broad-based discrimination and widespread terror” (UN Commission on Human Rights).

    Bombing Iraq again was pointless. It didn’t work in 1998 and when Saddam was debriefed after his capture, he said he was ready and willing to absorb another ODF-type bombing.

    After ODF, the options were limited. The best option was Saddam complying volitionally. When the UNSCR 1441 inspections confirmed “Iraq … remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687” (UNSCR 1441), the President’s choice was either follow through on the threat of regime change to bring Iraq into compliance or else surrender the ceasefire to Saddam and compromise the “governing standard of Iraqi compliance” to free an unreconstructed, noncompliant Saddam from constraint.

  7. Doug Nusbaum: “Bush had 6 years (that 2.5 more years than our involvement in WWII) to bring democracy to Iraq.”

    Germany and Japan were not transformed into functioning democracies by 1944-1945. They were not close to self-sufficient for over a decade – decades. To understand President Obama’s error of prematurely removing US peace-operations forces from Iraq, just imagine President Eisenhower had precipitously withdrawn US peace-operations forces from Europe and Asia in the early 1950s. It doesn’t take much imagination to picture the consequences that we guarded against by staying to secure and build the peace as the leader of the free world. Indeed, US forces continue to serve in both post-WW2 missions.

    For a more contemporary example, US peace-operations forces are still rotating through Kosovo, where the US intervened in 1999.

  8. mustardseed:

    Cheney and Bush and their media cohorts lied to the American public about the reasons for invading Iraq and the results they promised to deliver. It reveals something of the pathological nature of Republicans that they simply cannot ascribe the rightful blame to Cheney/Bush Co.

    I’m not a Republican. I’m just a guy who decided to read the primary sources of Operation Iraqi Freedom for himself.

    The prevalent myth that America was lied into war with Iraq is a demonstrably false narrative based on a fundamental false premise, ie, the casus belli was the pre-war intelligence estimates and the burden of proof was on the US and UN to demonstrate Iraqi possession fully matched pre-war intelligence estimates.

    In fact, the law and policy of the Gulf War ceasefire plainly state the casus belli was Iraq’s noncompliance with the UNSCR 660-series UN mandates. Verifying the intelligence was not an element of the “governing standard of Iraqi compliance” (UNSCR 1441).

    As I said upthread, the critical piece missing in the discourse on OIF is that the intelligence could be off the mark and Saddam could be guilty of the material breach that triggered OIF at the same time because the “governing standard of Iraqi compliance” was set by the UNSCRs, not the intelligence.

    The UNSCRs that set the “governing standard of Iraqi compliance” and the US law and policy that enforced the UNSCRs established that the burden of proof was on Saddam to prove “full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance” (UNSCR 1441).

    Saddam was required to comply fully with all the UN mandates to forestall regime change. That being said, the principal mandates for Iraq were the disarmament mandates of UNSCR 687, the terrorism mandates of UNSCR 687, and the humanitarian mandates of UNSR 688.

    To determine whether the decision for OIF was right on the law and justified policy, apply the test:

    Question: Was Saddam compliant with the disarmament mandates of UNSCR 687?

    Boiled down, the disarmament mandates of UNSCR 687 required Iraq to “declare” and “yield” all proscribed items to the UN inspectors for “destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision” and “unconditionally undertake not to use, develop, construct or acquire any of the [proscribed] items”.

    In other words, as President Bush stated to the UN General Assembly, 12SEP02, “If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material.”

    Answer: The UNSCR 1441 inspections concluded with UNMOVIC finding “about 100 unresolved disarmament issues” (Cluster Document), which were the principal trigger for OIF.

    In the post-war investigation, “ISG [Iraq Survey Group] judges that Iraq failed to comply with UNSCRs” (Duelfer Report).

    Question: Was Saddam compliant with the terrorism mandates of UNSCR 687?

    UNSCR 687: “32. Requires Iraq to inform the Security Council that it will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory and to condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism;”

    Note that the terrorism mandates of UNSCR 687 were not limited to a working partnership with al Qaeda or a direct hand in the 9/11 attacks.

    In other words, as President Bush stated to the UN on 12SEP02, “If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.”

    Answer: You can take your pick of sources on Saddam’s terrorism, but I’ll just quote the 9/11 Commission: “Baghdad actively sponsored terrorist groups, providing safe haven, training, arms, and logistical support, requiring in exchange that the groups carry out operations ordered by Baghdad for Saddam’s objectives. … Conventional wisdom casts Saddam Husayn as a terrorist, a primary consumer of terrorist tactics and methods, and an enemy of the United States. That is true. Conventional wisdom describes Iraq under Saddam Husayn as a primary state sponsor of international terrorism-and that is true.”

    Question: Was Saddam compliant with the humanitarian mandates of UNSCR 688?

    UNSCR 688: “Condemns the repression of the Iraqi civilian population in many parts of Iraq, including most recently in Kurdish populated areas, the consequences of which threaten international peace and security in the region;
    2. Demands that Iraq, as a contribution to remove the threat to international peace and security in the region, immediately end this repression”

    In other words, as President Bush stated to the UN on 12SEP02, “If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi’a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions.”

    Answer: From its April 2002 situation report on Iraq, “The [United Nations] Commission on Human Rights … Strongly condemns: (a) The systematic, widespread and extremely grave violations of human rights and of international humanitarian law by the Government of Iraq, resulting in an all-pervasive repression and oppression sustained by broad-based discrimination and widespread terror.”

    From the 2004 finding by the UN Special Rapporteur on Iraq, Andreas Mavrommatis: “The new evidence, particularly that of eyewitnesses, added another dimension to the systematic crimes of the former regime, revealing unparalleled cruelty, even in respect of the people being taken away for execution, and at the same time stories unfolded that were far worse than originally reported to the Special Rapporteur in the past.”

    Conclusion:

    The fact is in 2002-2003, Saddam was given a “final opportunity to comply” with “full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations” (UNSCR 1441). Instead, Saddam confirmed he was noncompliant across the board with the Gulf War ceasefire.

    The UNSCRs that set the “governing standard of Iraqi compliance” and the US law and policy that enforced Iraqi compliance with the UNSCRs plainly state the casus belli was Iraq’s material breach of the Gulf War ceasefire. As such, the “rightful blame” is President Bush’s decision for Operation Iraqi Freedom was right on the law and justified on the policy – although distorted in the politics.

  9. mustardseed:

    Eric,

    Congress did no such thing. Clinton merely followed the policy of containment that his predecessor left in place. The World Trade attacks changed everything and allowed Bush to ram through an ill-advised radical policy of preemption.

    Again, for the record, explanation (link) of the law and policy, fact basis for Operation Iraqi Freedom.

    Actually, preemption was Clinton doctrine in response to the rising tide of terrorism during the Clinton administration, particularly over Clinton’s concern over rogue actors like Iraq supplying WMD to terrorists. To wit, in an address to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff on February 17, 1998, President Clinton warned of “the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists”.

    See Presidential Decision Directive/NSC-39 (1995), which Bush carried forward in reaction to the 9/11 attacks.

    In fact, ‘containment’ was not US policy for Iraq until after Operation Desert Fox (ODF) in December 1998. Up to that point, enforcement of Iraq’s compliance with the UN mandates of the Gulf War ceasefire was US policy.

    To wit, on August 2, 1999, in his last comprehensive update on Iraq’s compliance to Congress per Public Law (P.L.) 102-1 (1991), President Clinton stated, “Iraq remains a serious threat to international peace and security. I remain determined to see Iraq fully comply with all of its obligations under Security Council resolutions.”

    ‘Containment’ only became the US policy – and an ad hoc one at that – upon the failure with ODF to enforce Saddam’s compliance. In practical terms, there was no substantive change in the enforcement measures after ODF from the strategy in place when President Clinton judged, “This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere,” and pronounced, “Iraq has abused its final chance.”

    According to the Iraq Survey Group, Saddam responded to ODF by nullifying the Gulf War ceasefire UNSC resolutions, including UNSCR 687 and its disarmament mandates, in domestic Iraq policy. Encouraged by the bearable cost of the ODF bombing, which he believed was the limit of the US-led enforcement, Saddam moved to reconstitute Iraq’s weapons-of-mass-destruction (WMD) capabilities with a clandestine active program in the Iraqi intelligence services (IIS) and fostered international opposition to the Iraq enforcement. The post-ODF ‘containment’ relied chiefly on the constraint of sanctions, yet by 2001, Saddam had de facto neutralized the sanctions.

    While it was the 9/11 attacks that pushed President Bush to resolve the Saddam problem, the Iraq enforcement was in a terminal state. The picture emerging outside Iraq was clear: the sanctions had fallen, the growing flow of proscribed items into Iraq indicated Saddam was rearming, and his terrorist activity continued unabated. With or without 9/11, the Saddam problem had come to a head with the ‘containment’ broken.

    As far as Congress’ engagement on the enforcement of the Gulf War ceasefire, here are excerpts from two of the Clinton-era Congressional resolutions I cited upthread.

    House Resolution 322, Sense of House Regarding Iraq, 13NOV97:

    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that … if it is necessary, however, the United States should take military action unilaterally to compel Iraqi compliance with United Nations Security Council resolutions.

    Public Law 105-235, Iraqi Breach of International Obligations, 14AUG98:

    Whereas Iraq’s continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threaten vital United States interests and international peace and security: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations, and therefore the President is urged to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.

    I also suggest reviewing sections 1095 and 1096 of Public Law 102-190 (1991) that reinforced the 1991 AUMF against Iraq (PL 102-1) with the position that Congress ‘‘supports the use of all necessary means” to “achieve the goals” of UNSCRs 687 and 688.

Comments are closed.