WTF ... IS WTF!?
We are a collective of people who believe in freedom of speech, the rights of individuals, and free pancakes! We share our lives, struggles, frustrations, successes, joys, and prescribe to our own special brand of humor and insanity. If you are looking for a great place to hang out, make new friends, find new nemeses, and just be yourself, WTF.com is your new home.

Headlines Annan: Iraq War 'Illegal' Without U.N. OK

V

voiceofreason

Seeker of Truth
#1
1,329
0
0
#1
UNITED NATIONS - U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan said in a BBC interview that the Bush Administration's decision to go to war in Iraq was "illegal" because it didn't have U.N. Security Council approval.

The U.N. Charter allows nations to take military action with Security Council approval as an explicit enforcement action, such as during the Korean War and the 1991 Gulf War.

But in 2003, in the buildup to the Iraq war, the United States dropped an attempt to get a Security Council resolution approving the invasion when it became apparent it would not pass.

"I hope we do not see another Iraq-type operation for a long time — without U.N. approval and much broader support from the international community," he said in an interview with the BBC World Service on Wednesday.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All pile on the rabbit, all pile on the rabbit. Go Kofi !
 
S

suck on this

pretty crazy
#2
7
0
0
#2
yea

from a UN point of view, according to the UN charter, yes it's illegal.. But look at Bush, do you really think he gives a shit ? The WMD lie was the perfect occasion to say "F*** you UN, we're going in anyway!"
 
D

DanGeo23

Resident Conservative
#3
1,218
0
0
#3
UN approval.. there were 17 resolutions and 12 years of diplomatic attempts.. the Sec. counsel members were all for action.. until it came time to act.. Kofi Annan wants us to get permission from him before we do anything.. yet he doesn't have his own organization under control... a story that should have made alot more news but didn't I believe because of the Iraqi prison abuse scandal coming to light at about the same time...
oil for food oil for food oil for food
 
R

RedOctober

Guest
#4
#4

Sorry old chap, but mister Annan represents most part of the world.
The US can't ignore that.
You may be a superpower, but that doesn't mean you are right.
 
D

DanGeo23

Resident Conservative
#5
1,218
0
0
#5
wow... thanx for calling me a superpower... as "super" as I may be ... I am no superpower...
I doubt that the "most part" of the world is nearly as corrupt as the UN.. but you maybe right... I have been wrong once before.. :cool:
 
R

RedOctober

Guest
#6
#6

DanGeo23 said:
wow... thanx for calling me a superpower... as "super" as I may be ... I am no superpower...
I doubt that the "most part" of the world is nearly as corrupt as the UN.. but you maybe right... I have been wrong once before.. :cool:
Click to expand...
Well... When talking about corruption...
Isn't the American voting system corrupt?

A people 0f 250 million, and no intellectual running for president.

That's not only sad, it's a disgrace!
 
T

TheGunslinger85

Clitpickle
#7
66
0
0
#7
DanGeo23 said:
wow... thanx for calling me a superpower... as "super" as I may be ... I am no superpower...
I doubt that the "most part" of the world is nearly as corrupt as the UN.. but you maybe right... I have been wrong once before.. :cool:
Click to expand...
What was that company Dick Cheney is still on the payroll of?
 
V

voiceofreason

Seeker of Truth
#8
1,329
0
0
#8
DanGeo23 said:
UN approval.. there were 17 resolutions and 12 years of diplomatic attempts.. the Sec. counsel members were all for action.. until it came time to act.. Kofi Annan wants us to get permission from him before we do anything.. yet he doesn't have his own organization under control... a story that should have made alot more news but didn't I believe because of the Iraqi prison abuse scandal coming to light at about the same time...
oil for food oil for food oil for food
Click to expand...
Ha! Seems I remember your using the excuse that we went after Saddam because he would not comply with the UN, but you're ducking the question of Bush going into this war and not complying with the UN.

What you are doing by "trying" to introduce another story in the middle of THIS thread is called mis-directing. Among your simpler friends that might work, but it's not playing here...
 
J

Jagdpanther

Fresh Meat
#9
2
0
0
#9
DanGeo23 said:
UN approval.. there were 17 resolutions and 12 years of diplomatic attempts.. the Sec. counsel members were all for action.. until it came time to act.. Kofi Annan wants us to get permission from him before we do anything.. yet he doesn't have his own organization under control... a story that should have made alot more news but didn't I believe because of the Iraqi prison abuse scandal coming to light at about the same time...
oil for food oil for food oil for food
Click to expand...
So, when the UN decides that maybe Saddam is just a hardnose, and that war is not really the answer, the U.S. can just ignore the majority of the world? Not very democratic don't you think? It seems to me that Kofi Annan would prefer that the U.S. would take it up with the world, and if the world says "no", that the "democratic" U.S. would respect that answer. The world needs to listen to Bush, but not the other way around? Also, while we're on the subject of UN security council resolutions, Israel has 69. :bomb:
 
R

RedOctober

Guest
#10
#10

Well... The US once used a cheap trick to fool the UN, but that doesn't mean they can use that trick again and again.
Ut hapend before the war in Korea, that the Russians got so mad they walked away, and then the Americans succeeded in getting the OK for the Korean war by the UN.

But when Colin Powell was coming in the UN building to explain about WMD with some cartoons, the world didn't buy that.
The Europeans really were disgusted with Bush using Powell as a puppet.
The WMD story was a charade.

The problem in Iraq is, Saddam Hussain is not relevant. The moment he gets killed, som other tirant will rise.

Americans are in deep shit now.
A dillemma.

1) You can't pacify the country.
2) Leaving would be to lose face, but still the best thing to do.
 
V

voiceofreason

Seeker of Truth
#11
1,329
0
0
#11
RedOctober said:
Americans are in deep shit now.
A dillemma.

1) You can't pacify the country.
2) Leaving would be to lose face, but still the best thing to do.
Click to expand...
These people are Spinmeisters, they can spin shit into gold. They could go with your Option 2, and say they've completed the Liberation of Iraq! It beats the hell out of killing more people everyday for nothing...
 
R

RedOctober

Guest
#12
#12

Well, the real American problem is the budget. As long as a nation consumes more than it produces, something must go wrong.
What Bush did, was only a temporary solution of the problem.
Waging war will create jobs, but who is going to pay for it? Right, the American taxpayer.
Iraqi oil is very hard to get. You can patrol all pipelines every day, but somewhwere along the line they will blow a hole in it. Every day if necessary.

Another problem is the 3 different megagroups. The Kurds are a time bomb in the long run. They are at war with the Turks, and everybody else who is trespassing on their territory.
The Sunni and Sjiite clans that cause the trouble now are only ill disciplined fighters. The influence of Iran is growing day by day, and it will take not so long before the Kurds start messing things up even more.

In the end, America will support a ruthless dictator.
He will permit an oil contract in return.
After a few years however, he will nationalize the oil industry again, and we are back at square 1. :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.