Iraq war illegal, Kofi Annan - The UN
POSTED BY: Ghoulman
UPDATED: Saturday, March 28, 2026 18:32
VIEWED: 15590
PAGE 12 of 15
Quote:
I find those articles to be very skewed towards American interests. The whole Oil for food thing was a joke to begin with.
The Food for Oil fiasco was a crisis of the UN's own making ( with the best of intent though ) Once it was established that the system did not work, the US and Britain were the only security council members who wouldn't allow changes to this program as well as the sanction regime to better provide for humanitarian aid. All the safer for our armys to push through later I suppose...
Quote:
Why Saddam wasn't ousted back then is highly suspicious. It's not like the Arabs wanted him around. Think about it.
Of the Arab countrys in the Alliance of the first Gulf War, I believe there was a condition that they were only in if the Americans stopped at running the Iraqi army from Kuwait. This was not becasue they supported Saddam, but because they didn't want the Americans to " run " Iraq either.
On the otherhand, I think the Americans didn't follow through because they A) Realized they would have Trouble installing a pro-yank government ( and they do, even after twelve years of starvation and bombing ) B) It gave them an excuse to plant troops in Saudi Arabia ensuring their continued loyalty ( Iraq = Russian Boogyman and cold war ) C. The international community would have opposed it ( as they do, even post 911 which I think they were banking on to give themselve moral credibility )
Quote:
The anti-UN sentiment created in the USA (and has been a part of American propoganda for sometime... especially reved up with Americas "unsigning" of the ABM Treaty recently) is a very disturbing issue.
Perhaps we as Canadians must consider the possibilty, we require intermediate range missles armed with nuclear weapons ourselves.
Every action the Bush regime has taken has encouraged the fact that WMD may be the only way to deter the US, if we don't secretly have them already ( as Canadian engineers help the yanks build theirs we have the capability ), and the real funny thing ( we have had weapon systems that were good for little other than nuclear delivery going back to the fiftys ( CF-104, Bomarc, etc )
Quote:
The USA is personally responsible for most of the UNs problems (er, that we are talkiing of). Why? Because the US doeesn't support the UN in things like... actually doing something when Rwanda madmen slaughter tens of thousands.
UN reform is needed, at least we can see they are trying to police their own troubles
http://www.un.org/News/briefings/docs/2004/VolckerPressCfc.doc.htm
Quote:
That bitch Madeleine Albright should be hacked up with a ... well, no... But, she makes one phone call and that's it for Rwanda. Sad. At least Bubba Clinton apologised. He even stated, clearly, the American position (I'm paraphrasing) - if America has no interest, it will not interfere.
International Criminal Court, and not like the show trial of Milosevic. International law must be updated and enforced.
Quote:
Meanwhile - Canadian Peace Keepers have once again left the country they have been working in for nearly a decade with yet another job well done. Bosnia is a better place for having Canadians helping.
We do have our own problems in this reguard, I don't think Lew MacKenzie did much for Sarajevo, he became too political, and was ineffective in the end despite his own self promotion. If say, Dallieire had of been in the same situation I am sure thinks would have come off quite different.
Not being critical, just saying there was a lesson to be learnt, we need Military reform in our own country as much as the UN needs reform with its processes.
Mind you, unlike the Americans we tend to leave if asked. You aren't helping the people to went to help if they start trying to drive you out.
Quote:
Are their any countries that can say that about the USA? Any country at all.. anyone?
Certainly not Hawaii...
http://www.hawaii-nation.org/betrayal.html
" I
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
This is also where that crazy term, compromise comes in. Nobody, ever, will be happy with everything. It is a function of the needs of the different countries and what they find important. What one must do is find a balance and all the countries involved must be mature enough to accept it. I must point out at this time that this is exactly what the US doesn't do.
To paraphrase Chesterton, compromise means a half loaf of bread is better than no loaf of bread, but many want us to believe that compromise means a half loaf is better than a full loaf.
My problem with the U.N. is that the permanent veto powers prevent the need for compromise. Why compromise when you can prevent the action you don't want to happen wth a simple veto? If China compromises on Sudan they lose oil resources they need, if they veto they don't lose anything.
Quote:
In the case of Iraq, the resolution stated that they would suffer dire consequences if they didn't, blah blah blah. Which the weapons inspectors where figuring out to what, if any degree, was said infraction.
Now at some point in time the US (among others) decided to "go it alone" and attack (illegally) Iraq because of things they thought that the rest of us knew not to be true.
WMDs were an excuse for invasion by the Bush administration, they were never the reason. Of course it is hard to sell a war if the reasons are oil and revenge.
While I doubt that France or Germany had anything but their own oil interests in mind when they threatened U.N. veto I would never deny that the U.S. violated the U.N. charter by its actions.
Quote:
Now at this point we have a member (the US and others) that have committed an major infraction against another state. So, then what consequences should befall the US (and others)? Clearly, they have done something wrong. Clearly, they have done some illegal. Clearly, something should be done to punish the US (and the others as well) for this horrible crime. So, let's fix this problem. What would your suggestions be?
Well the U.N. cannot do anything because the U.S. would simply veto it. The United Kingdom would as well.
France and Germany, as well as any nation that objects to the actions of the U.S. has the right to boycott U.S. goods, withdraw from NATO and otherwise isolate America within the scopes of their powers. It those nations acted in unison it might even make a difference.
Quote:
You wrote:
"""
The U.N. has been poorly set up from the very beginning.
"""
I think you said this before. But just because you say it, doesn't make it true. Perhaps some justification is in order, eh?
I thought my whole tirade about certain members having priviledged status and a veto power that cannot be overruled was a justification for this belief.
Quote:
You wrote:
"""
...the root of the problem that is human nature.
"""
Human nature only becomes a problem if we let our cave-man like qualities come out. So, as I stated before, humans have comes a long way. We now have the ability to control ourselves and act in the interest of the common good. To say that it is unavoidable and to say that it's only our "human nature" is to give up on order and delve into chaos.
I don't have the faith in civilization that you do. IMO Cave-men had just as much success with human nature that modern man does. I find that what had been considered vice for millenia is now considered virtue.
1. Plato, Aristotle, Cato, Cicero, Seneca, Plutarch, Aquinas, Luther, Zwingli as well as Moses, Jesus and Mohammed all condemned usury but modern civilization has embraced it.
2. Aristotle suggests that abortion should occur before the fetus obtains sensation and in the intervening 2,000+ years we have not nailed down that moment one iota.
3. Modern advertising has found no better way than appealing to and encouraging the pride, lust, gluttony and envy of people to hawk their products.
4. Physical slavery has been replaced with wage sla
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
" Well the U.N. cannot do anything because the U.S. would simply veto it. The United Kingdom would as well. "
Actually a resolution condemning the US action could have been put through, there is a mechanism put in place during the Suez crisis which put throw the vote to approve the resolution down to the General Assembly. I think this wasn't done simply because it would have been just another, well we don't like it but we can't stop you type exchange.
I wish I remembered more about how it worked, but if I recall right Britain and France ( two Security council members ) were on the losing end of the vote.
Edit: This refers to it, sort of. I'm sure a better reference could be found
http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/ciw-cdm/Pearson-en.asp
" If I going to get killed for a word....
Then my word is Poon-Tang "
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Arawaen:
My problem with the U.N. is that the permanent veto powers prevent the need for compromise. Why compromise when you can prevent the action you don't want to happen wth a simple veto? If China compromises on Sudan they lose oil resources they need, if they veto they don't lose anything.
You don't make/keep any trade partners if you keep vetoing in your "best" interest. There *is* compromises now, otherwise *everything* would be veto'd. Simply put, not everything is, so there is compromise. A nations best interest *is* to compromise.
Quote:
Originally posted by Arawaen:
While I doubt that France or Germany had anything but their own oil interests in mind when they threatened U.N. veto I would never deny that the U.S. violated the U.N. charter by its actions.
Although I do agree that there were probably some personal (as in nation) interest involved. To say that that was the major driving point is just silly.
You are clearly looking from there point of view as though they were americans. You must look at it from there point of view through there eyes, not yours.
European countries have *very* different cultures than the US. I know this because the wife and I have had some... interesting disusions about some things. And Canada is closer to European culture than the US is... *far* closer.
Also, I might add that Europe has pleanty of oil amongst itself. There is also Russia right beside them that has a lot as well (which is where Gemany gets there's, France is primarily nuclear powered as well). To say that they needed oil from the middle east doesn't fit with the situation. There oil needs are also *far* less than that of the US.
Your argument just doesn't add up.
Quote:
Originally posted by Arawaen:Quote:
Now at this point we have a member (the US and others) that have committed an major infraction against another state. So, then what consequences should befall the US (and others)? Clearly, they have done something wrong. Clearly, they have done some illegal. Clearly, something should be done to punish the US (and the others as well) for this horrible crime. So, let's fix this problem. What would your suggestions be?
Well the U.N. cannot do anything because the U.S. would simply veto it. The United Kingdom would as well.
France and Germany, as well as any nation that objects to the actions of the U.S. has the right to boycott U.S. goods, withdraw from NATO and otherwise isolate America within the scopes of their powers. It those nations acted in unison it might even make a difference.
You still haven't answered my question.
You also seem to think that it was only France and Germany that were against the war as you only mention them. Why are you mentioning the others? Why not mention Canada?
After all, we got so pissed at you guys, we decided to send down Celine Dion to torture you guys for a few years
Quote:
Originally posted by Arawaen:
I thought my whole tirade about certain members having priviledged status and a veto power that cannot be overruled was a justification for this belief.
Nope. That argument only holds weight at *this* point in time. Though I don't entirely agree. You must still justify the "always" qualification or remove it.
Quote:
Originally posted by Arawaen:
I don't have the faith in civilization that you do. IMO Cave-men had just as much success with human nature that modern man does.
Everyone has human nature and thus has success with it. The trick is to not give into the more barbaric tendancies.
Quote:
Originally posted by Arawaen:
I find that what had been considered vice for millenia is now considered virtue.
1. Plato, Aristotle, Cato, Cicero, Seneca, Plutarch, Aquinas, Luther, Zwingli as well as Moses, Jesus and Mohammed all condemned usury but modern civilization has embraced it.
Modern *North American* behaviour has embrased it
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
{Shatner voice} Thread... too long.... eyes bleeding...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Anyway, since media bias came up (briefly) in this thread, I'm posting this here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/politics/campaign/03fox.html?th=&pag
ewanted=print&position=
Fabricated Kerry Posting Leads to Apology From Fox News
Plenty of news media analysts thought Senator John Kerry looked good at Thursday night's presidential debate, but Fox News went a step further, posting a made-up news article on its Web site that quoted Mr. Kerry as gloating about his fine manicure and his "metrosexual" appearance.
Fox News quickly retracted the article, saying in an editor's note on its Web site that the article "was written in jest and should not have been posted or broadcast.'' It said, "We regret the error, which occurred because of fatigue and bad judgment, not malice." (no. really. Rue)
The article, posted on Friday on foxnews.com, was written by Carl Cameron, the chief political correspondent for Fox News, and included several bogus quotes from Mr. Kerry, supposedly assessing his performance in the debate.
"Didn't my nails and cuticles look great? What a good debate!" the article quoted Mr. Kerry, the Democratic candidate, as telling his supporters in Florida after the event.
"Women should like me! I do manicures," the story also quoted him as saying. It also had Mr. Kerry contrasting himself with President Bush: "I'm metrosexual - he's a cowboy."
Before the debate, several Fox News commentators remarked on the air about how Mr. Kerry had reportedly gotten a manicure that day.
Mr. Cameron has been reprimanded over the incident, said Paul Schur, a spokesman for the network. "This was a stupid mistake and a lapse in judgment, and Carl regrets it," Mr. Schur said.
He declined to say how Mr. Cameron had been reprimanded or whether action had been taken against others at Fox News who reviewed the article before it was posted. Mr. Cameron, who is well respected in news media circles, declined to discuss the incident when reached on Saturday. He is continuing to report from the campaign trail.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ho ho ho, tha's rich! FOX News faking another web article. How many has it been?
Thanx RUE! You're shiny. 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
" Perhaps you could enlighten me with the other secessionists that live in my country. "
I know of a small group which wishes Canada to seperate from our constitution in order to update / modernize / generally overhaul it. Things like Senate Reform ( or elimination ) the role of the Governor General ( or elimination ) and generally re-examine confederation.
Mind you, it is not to break up one part of the country for another, it is more because of the belief that our Federal system is incapible of setting limits for itself, and thanks to Bill 33 the provinces now have the capibility to force the issue.
Its like all the provinces go, and then rejoin the new better Canada...
All in All interesting... more so than I expect the throne speech to be.
" If I going to get killed for a word....
Then my word is Poon-Tang "
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
I know of a small group which wishes Canada to seperate from our constitution in order to update / modernize / generally overhaul it. Things like Senate Reform ( or elimination ) the role of the Governor General ( or elimination ) and generally re-examine confederation.
Yes, but this really isn't a seperation from Canada. It's just as you say, a modernization of the current system.
I for one don't mind having a govern general as long as that person doesn't abuse the power (which our current one has) and if (s)he does then give our Prime Minister the power to fire her/him (which is a power that our PM doesn't currently have).
I think that our federal system has problems because the liberals have been in power for so bloody long. I believe that if the NDP, PC, etc had been in power for this long they would've suffered the same fate. One of the good things that came out of the last election is that the liberals have a minority government so this'll give them a needed "down to earth" check.
I do think that we do need to modernize, but that doesn't mean seperating from any of our charters or what have you. It just means getting together and hashing something out.
But this is something that I definitly *don't* want to happen when the conservatives have as must power as they do now. There love affair with the US and there policies are, IMO, anti-Canadian (ie pro privitization, anti gay marrage even though the charter of rights and freedoms allows for it, etc). I shutter at the thought that they'd have major influence over the future of my country.
----
"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
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
I for one don't mind having a govern general as long as that person doesn't abuse the power (which our current one has) and if (s)he does then give our Prime Minister the power to fire her/him (which is a power that our PM doesn't currently have).
I think the traditional role of the Governor General, and in addition the Lieutenant-Governor roles are dated, and frankly a waste of money.
After reviewing the offical website:
http://www.gg.ca/menu_e.asp
I don't see anyrole that shouldn't already be handled by Foreign Affairs, the PM, or the Chief of Defence Staff.
As to the role of liason with the Monarchy, with the modern convience of jet travel, if say The Prince of Wales wished to address Parliment directly on a matter, I think that would been much more appropriate, for Canadians, and for the Monarchy to seen to function could tie the Commonwealth together as more of a alliance.
Quote:
I think that our federal system has problems because the liberals have been in power for so bloody long. I believe that if the NDP, PC, etc had been in power for this long they would've suffered the same fate. One of the good things that came out of the last election is that the liberals have a minority government so this'll give them a needed "down to earth" check.
Definately, but also due to patronage appointments without mandate or review, the lack of an electorial recall mechanism, and the slant of media bias, I really don't think anything will change much.
Quote:
But this is something that I definitly *don't* want to happen when the conservatives have as must power as they do now. There love affair with the US and there policies are, IMO, anti-Canadian (ie pro privitization, anti gay marrage even though the charter of rights and freedoms allows for it, etc). I shutter at the thought that they'd have major influence over the future of my country.
While the conservatives are a mass of American bum lickers who cannot be allowed into power ( thats why I voted for the Green Party, so they'd get my two bucks ) I do agree with them on several key issues in the domestic agenda.
pro privitization : Has already happened ( private clinics in Quebec, Ontario, BC, etc), we simply have to strike the correct balance. For example, if health Canada decides that in Manitoba, it costs X number of dollars to perform a medical procedure in a public facility, would it be wrong to allow a private facility ( same or better standard of service ) to perform the same procdure for X dollars paided by the healthcare system ? I don't agree with additional user fees, que jumping, etc, but if a doctor with the qualifications, could start his own clinic, regulated by Government inspection, and still make money doing it at the same cost... Why the hell not. The only ones this could effect negitively is the unions who I think have too much control in Healthcare anyway.
As for anti gay marrage, I myself don't like the courts ( a stacked Liberal appointed court at that ) making the law. I am neutral in this issue, but feel strongly that we have Parliment to debate and make law, and a judicial system to intrepret and reject laws passed which do not conform to the standards of the charter of rights and freedoms. End runs like this shouldn't be
As it is we have the provinces jumping into Federal issues, the Feds trying to dictate provincial issues...........
Thats why we need a clean sweep, the system is too self absorbed to change without a hell of a push. If we ever got our act together, we would have the Seperatists in Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, and Washington trying like hell to join up with us.. but until we do, I think most Canadians half heartedly follow this system simply not to be American.
" If I going to get killed for a word....
Then my word is Poon-Tang "
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME