Real World Event Discussions
Iraq war illegal, Kofi Annan - The UN
POSTED BY: Ghoulman
UPDATED: Saturday, March 28, 2026 18:32
VIEWED: 15590
PAGE 2 of 15
Friday, September 17, 2004 7:39 PM
^^^ There never was a Jesus.
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.
Sorry, big response for a big issue.
Wow. He opposed the war then and now. Big surprise. Dozens of nations disagreed. There has been no Security Council action to condemn the war.
SNIP!!!
You blame the UN for the invasion of Iraq by the USA ??? ... lol!!!
Biggest pile of crap I've seen here in, oh, must be a week!
What colour is the sky in your world HERO?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Saturday, September 18, 2004 2:58 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
^^^ There never was a Jesus.Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.
Sorry, big response for a big issue.
Wow. He opposed the war then and now. Big surprise. Dozens of nations disagreed. There has been no Security Council action to condemn the war.
SNIP!!!
You blame the UN for the invasion of Iraq by the USA ??? ... lol!!!
Biggest pile of crap I've seen here in, oh, must be a week!
What colour is the sky in your world HERO?
Sky was a lovely shade of grey today. Ironic.
Actually the blame falls to Saddam, who had it within his power to avoid war right up until a day or so before the invasion. He misread US intentions and misread the international dynamic. Once Bush issued the "leave Iraq or else" ultimatum in the last days before the War, the choice to go to war was placed in Saddam's hands.
But Saddam was not totally at fault. The opposition to the war he percieved in the UN, the thousands and protestors, and the split in the Western Block led Saddam to believe that war might be avoided, or if not avoided then it would be limited and survivable.
This was the result of a long term strategy on Saddam's part. He subverted the UN with oil money, played up to France and Russia, provided financial support to international protest organizations, and continued to support terror (particularly against Isreal) in order to emerge the Arab champion once sanctions were lifted. Split the west, end sanctions, and emerge stronger and with more regional influence then he had before the Gulf War.
His strategy was successful, but 9/11 changed the political dynamic. He failed to consider that the nature of the new US policy of premptive warfare, even though he had seen that policy exercised with great success by Isreal in response to its long running conflict with both terror and Arab aggression.
The ultimate blame lies with the nations like France and Germany (and Russia, but they are not a traditional US ally). Saddam's diplomacy and financial corruption split these nations from the US and UK. This anti-American faction of the Western Block actively opposed US policy towards Iraq after the mid-nineties. Had these nations rallied to the US in opposition to Saddam in 2002 and before the war I believe Saddam would have backed down and might be in power today. (Hmmm...so I'm glad things worked out this way, and so are the tens of thousands who would have been tortured, raped, and murdered each year Saddam might have been in power.)
Annan holds little blame, after all he believes the UN stands for nothing, so his opinions hold little weight. I do note that his family made a fortune off Iraqi oil. Annan is like the Pope only without the religous part, and we already have a Pope so we don't need some armchair diplomat running around saying how bad things are and how we need to do more and be all loving our neighbors.
We need international leadership willing to kick some ass in the name of truth, justice and the American way. Ok, maybe not "American" way, but certainly the way of freedom, liberty, and prosperity for all mankind, sorry, that IS the American way.
Maybe you have a problem with that, that's ok. Really its ok. Your free to have your problem with that. Think anything you want...but if you oppose liberty then you are on the losing side. Just ask Hitler, the Soviets, Slobo the Yugo, Osama Bin-Inna Cave, or Saddam. Or ten thousand dead terrorists wondering why paradise is so hot and lacking in virgins.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Saturday, September 18, 2004 7:31 PM
Quote:
Actually the blame falls to Saddam, who had it within his power to avoid war right up until a day or so before the invasion. Once Bush issued the "leave Iraq or else" ultimatum in the last days before the War
'Hero,' quote any part of any UN resolution that calls for Hussein to leave Iraq.
Ghoulman, and there you have it. America's shame, breathtakingly naked.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Saturday, September 18, 2004 7:40 PM
I think we should take up a collection to send Hero on a trip to some of these places he feels that the US has helped so much.
The one condition... He has to walk the streets wearing the American flag either on his jacket or shirt
A little public opinion on his ass may just turn into a healthy dose of reality 
" If I going to get killed for a word....
Then my word is Poon-Tang "
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Saturday, September 18, 2004 8:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
I think we should take up a collection to send Hero on a trip to some of these places he feels that the US has helped so much.
The one condition... He has to walk the streets wearing the American flag either on his jacket or shirt
A little public opinion on his ass may just turn into a healthy dose of reality
" If I going to get killed for a word....
Then my word is Poon-Tang "
LOL! I'll pitch in twenty bucks.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Saturday, September 18, 2004 9:52 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
I think Annan's statement was designed to deflect attention from the UN's failure to do anything about the crisis in Sudan.
No, that's what Bush would have done. And bombed everybody probably. The UN tries to HELP - not just kill people.
Quote:
The latest draft proposal for sanctions against the Khartoum government can't even get out of the Security Council due to veto threats from China and Russia.
The alternative is world war 3 - we have to find a peacefull solution - force doesn't work (witness Iraq) you can't bomb your way to peace.
You have to talk your way to peace - and if someone dies along the way that is terrible, but the alternative might be even more people dying.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sunday, September 19, 2004 3:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
I think we should take up a collection to send Hero on a trip to some of these places he feels that the US has helped so much.
The one condition... He has to walk the streets wearing the American flag either on his jacket or shirt
I'd proudly fit right in with the thousands of my friends and neighbors and many people who post on this board. That is the US servicemen who walk the streets of Iraq, Germany, Romania, Italy, Spain, Afganistan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Cuba (ok, that tiny strip that isn't under Castro's control) South Korea, and on, etc, and don't forget Japan. They walk those streets and proudly wear the flag on their jackets, do you really think I'd do any less if called?
Send your collection to them, they prove my point every day.
Quote:
A little public opinion on his ass may just turn into a healthy dose of reality
I hardly think that the rule of the terrorist or the mob represent public opinion.
I agree however that many people, although I doubt a majority except in certain countries (France)really hate the US to the extent the extremists and liberals claim they do. We Americans have a word describing those kind of people who, for whatever reason, hate America...WRONG. These people were wrong about the Cold War, wrong about the economy, wrong about freedom, and wrong about terror. But, like those who do appreciate America they are right about one thing. That is their deep down faith that America will be there to bail them out or save their ass when the next Hitler comes to town or planes (and buildings) start falling from the sky.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sunday, September 19, 2004 3:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:Quote:
Actually the blame falls to Saddam, who had it within his power to avoid war right up until a day or so before the invasion. Once Bush issued the "leave Iraq or else" ultimatum in the last days before the War
'Hero,' quote any part of any UN resolution that calls for Hussein to leave Iraq.
Ghoulman, and there you have it. America's shame, breathtakingly naked.
Its the part about "serious consequences". We tried to be more clear, but France said that those two words were the best form to communicate our intent.
The ultimatum delivered by Bush was a final diplomatic effort to avoid war. Thats why the war didn't come immediately with the passage of the resolution.
Its like due process. Resolution, then Saddam fails to comply, then diplomacy and military buildup (sabre rattling), then Congress (use of force), then final diplomacy, then shock and awe (although we were ten miles deep into Iraq before the shock and halfway to Baghdad before the awe).
Each step requires Saddam by action or inaction to choose the next step. He could have stopped the process at any point simply by giving in or giving up. The US had no choice once the process started then to prosecute as far as needed to force Iraqi compliance, but the power to stop the march to war was left in Saddam's hands.
Lets compare this process to Iraq's process during the last war they started. Step one invade Kuwait. Thats it. Democracies practice an involved process designed to avoid war, dictators don't.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sunday, September 19, 2004 3:48 AM
This is all so very interesting, really.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sunday, September 19, 2004 5:43 AM
@Hero
"serious consequenses" does _*/not/*_ equal war. It's only war mongers like you that think this way. The civilized world can (and wanted to) do far more before bombs are dropped.
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
The ultimatum delivered by Bush was a final diplomatic effort to avoid war. Thats why the war didn't come immediately with the passage of the resolution.
This "final diplomatic effort" was pathetic at best. All of the UN was wanting the inspectors to finish there job *before* any action was taken, as a means to evaluate what action should be taken, if any. But that didn't seem good enough for blood-thirsty un-president Bush.
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Its like due process. Resolution, then Saddam fails to comply, then diplomacy and military buildup (sabre rattling), then Congress (use of force), then final diplomacy, then shock and awe (although we were ten miles deep into Iraq before the shock and halfway to Baghdad before the awe).
What due process? The UN had a process and the US decided to circumvent said process and create its own "world order." Well by the looks of it, this sick experiment has failed.
And what has happened on the Afgan frount? Don't like talking about that, eh? Just another american failure. America drops out of that war and leaves it up to the rest of the world to pick up the slack (what happened to all that 9/11 vengance stuff?) while the US goes off to Iraq illegally. Smells funny if you ask me. Especially since Iraq had done nothing to deserve this (provide evidence if you have any, which you don't, because it was all known to be false by the rest of us *before* this all began).
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Each step requires Saddam by action or inaction to choose the next step. He could have stopped the process at any point simply by giving in or giving up. The US had no choice once the process started then to prosecute as far as needed to force Iraqi compliance, but the power to stop the march to war was left in Saddam's hands.
This sounds almost like an abusive husband saying, "I'm sorry honey, but you know what I'm like when I get mad. Why did you make me do this? You know it's your fault, you know how I am." It's no excuse for the husband, and it's no excuse for the US.
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Lets compare this process to Iraq's process during the last war they started. Step one invade Kuwait. Thats it. Democracies practice an involved process designed to avoid war, dictators don't.
Um, you do realize that Bush just decided to go to war without due process, right? He did have the authority to do it and he did. I hate to say it, but america as a country is headed in the direction of a dictatorship and unfortunatly it already is in many respects (ie no senate approval required to go to war). Is a sad thing indeed.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME