Annon says Iraq war illegal

[sdimock]

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/09/16/iraq.annan.ap/index.html

If the UN rules the war in Iraq was illegal, shouldn't that mean something in concequences?

I know there are lots of stories/editorials out there remarking on how the UN is an orginization with no teeth.

After seeing articles like this I keep remembering the sceen from the Road Warrior movie, "they talked and talked and talked..."

 

[Goober]

I'm interested to see what comes of this. Finally someone sees clearly, and speaks out.

 

[NavyGrunt]

I'm interested to see what comes of this. Finally someone sees clearly, and speaks out.

Yeah maybe we will see economic sanctions......or worse still.....the THREAT of economic sanctions :

 

[jrhume]

I think it means they take away our Superpower rating and send us down to the Dead Empire league.

In fact, I have a copy of the letter Annan sent to Dubya on the subject.  I won't quote the whole thing.  Here's the important line:

"You are hereby suspended from flight duty and sentenced to banishment to the Alabama Air Guard for failing to make the drill held at the annual Longhorns homecoming game."

Oops.  Wrong letter.  I keep getting those forg -- ah, originals mixed up.  Sorry.  

I'm sure that Annan letter is here somewhere.  What font was it in?  

 

[NavyGrunt]

Its right under those other memos Annon wrote about the UN council being " weak and limp wristed" and "not intrested in Africa"

 

[Jarnhamar]

I though the UNs new mandate was to chase after parents who spank their kids?

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

QUOTE
I though the UNs new mandate was to chase after parents who spank their kids?

No, they are pretty busy getting ready to send teams to Sudan in about 4 months to start counting bodies.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Kofi through the years ...

1994: Withholds UN troops/action to prevent genocide in Rwanda: http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/rwanda4.htm (also in Dallaire's book).

1998: Claims he did everything he could have to prevent genocide in Rwanda: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/87851.stm

2004: Claims he could have done more to prevent genocide in Rwanda: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3573229.stm

2004: Whilst doing nothing in the midst of another genocide, he calls US action stopping a mass-murdering (300,000+ bodies so far) dictator "illegal," and unveils plan to stop "future massacres": http://www.un.org/apps/news/storyAr.asp?NewsID=10337&Cr=Rwanda&Cr1=Genocide

(Does this sound a little cynical?)

 

[dutchie]

It's unfortunate for those of us that agree with Annan on this issue that this condemnation comes from a man with so little 'moral authority' on world conflicts/tragedies.....

It doesn't negate the validity of the UN condemnation, it just weakens the impact it has on a lot of people (like 'John Galt').

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

2007: Claims that he has 'no regrets' about UN inaction in Darfur.

2010: Regime change in Iraq "a good thing, in the final analysis"

2012: Apologizes for "not doing more" to stop the genocide in the Sudan.

2013: On a book tour promoting his memoirs, tells President Schwartzenegger that the world owes America "a debt of gratitude" for going against popular opinion and stopping Saddam.

 

[dutchie]

Funny stuff John...of course you realize Arny could never be President as he wasn't born the the States....unless they change the law.

 

[ackland]

Funny stuff John...of course you realize Arny could never be President as he wasn't born the the States....unless they change the law.

For Him i could see it

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

My understanding is that it would take a formal Constitutional Amendment, but there has actually been some semi-serious discussion of the possibility (and in principle, why shouldn't a fully naturalized citizen be allowed to run?).

 

[ackland]

My understanding is that it would take a formal Constitutional Amendment, but there has actually been some semi-serious discussion of the possibility (and in principle, why shouldn't a fully naturalized citizen be allowed to run?).

Considering the entire population almost came from some sort of immigration.

 

[dutchie]

I agree. By not allowing any US citizen to be President, it kinda goes against the whole 'American Dream' concept. I was actually quite surprised when I heard it for the first time.

"Hey Kids. In America, you can be whatever you want to be when you grow up. It's called the American Dream."...."Hey Johnny/Tariq/Sung/Sigfried, what do you want to be when you grow up?"....."I want to be President!"......"sorry kiddo, you weren't born here......how about that Taxi cab over there?"

I'm not sure of Arny's political astuteness, but he sure is popular, which seems to count for more these days.

 

[Demophobia]

It seems that international law in the UN is made up as they go along. The UN charter alows nations to take military action with Security Council aproval. Since France/Germany/Russia opposed invading Iraq then the war was illegal but if France/Germany/Russia had supported the invasion then all of a sudden it becomes legal. Seems pretty arbitrary IMHO. For arguments sake why is it legal and in fact encouraged for the US to send troops to Sudan and not Iraq?

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

It seems that international law in the UN is made up as they go along. The UN charter alows nations to take military action with Security Council aproval. Since France/Germany/Russia opposed invading Iraq then the war was illegal but if France/Germany/Russia had supported the invasion then all of a sudden it becomes legal. Seems pretty arbitrary IMHO. For arguments sake why is it legal and in fact encouraged for the US to send troops to Sudan and not Iraq?

Perhaps this has something to do with it:

  The intelligence reports showing French assistance to Saddam ongoing in the late winter of 2002 helped explain why France refused to deal harshly with Iraq and blocked U.S. moves at the United Nations.

    "No wonder the French are opposing us," one U.S. intelligence official remarked after illegal sales to Iraq of military and dual-use parts, originating in France, were discovered early last year before the war began. . . .

    U.S. intelligence would not discover the pipeline until the eve of war last year; sensitive intelligence indicated that parts had been smuggled to Iraq as recently as that January. . . .

    As of last year, Iraq owed France an estimated $4 billion for arms and infrastructure projects, according to French government estimates. U.S. officials thought this massive debt was one reason France opposed a military operation to oust Saddam.

    The fact that illegal deals continued even as war loomed indicated France viewed Saddam's regime as a future source of income.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040908-123000-1796r.htm

 

[Kirkhill]

The UN charter alows nations to take military action with Security Council aproval. Since France/Germany/Russia opposed invading Iraq then the war was illegal but if France/Germany/Russia had supported the invasion then all of a sudden it becomes legal.

Same reason that if a jury decides the evidence against an accused murderer is weak they acquit him/her.  Different jury, same evidence, same accused could come up with a different result.  Send the accused to jail or whatever.  Just 'cause as my kids used to say when they were younger.

That's the way most things in this world are decided.  The decision is not necessarily the right decision but it's a decision that society generally accepts.  That's the way Parliament and the Courts work, or used to.  It's not so much that those august bodies have the right answers, it is that they come up with answers that discomfit the fewest number of people and thus preserve the peace.

There is a reason that the distance between the benches in the Houses of Parliament is 2 Sword Lengths.  It gave breathing room to armed men that cordially detested each other and had long-standing feuds that went back hundreds of years.  Parliament was a place to resolve disputes without killing each other unnecessarily.  

That is what Iraq is learning just now.  The have got a pretty steep learning curve ahead of them but by my estimate don't seem to be doing too bad.

Us Brits,every 25 years or so, between 1066 and today, were involved in slaughtering each other or some of those poor buggers from the Continent that felt we should be more like them.

The Yanks and Tony were right to go into Iraq.  Despite the fact that they may not have played by the rules.

Brits adore their Rugby, at least the Foxhunting bunch that tends to join the army and become officers does.  Here's a memorial to one of their heroes, the man credited with "Inventing" Rugby Football

A plaque at Rugby School bears the inscription:

THIS STONE

COMMEMORATES THE EXPLOIT
OF
WILLIAM WEBB ELLIS
WHO WITH A FINE DISREGARD FOR THE RULES OF FOOTBALL
AS PLAYED IN HIS TIME,
FIRST TOOK THE BALL IN HIS ARMS AND RAN WITH IT,
THUS ORIGINATING THE DISTINCTIVE FEATURE OF THE RUGBY GAME

A.D. 1823

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Webb_Ellis