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 Who Voted for War With Zimbabwe? Iran?

Jung

???
Premium
13,998
2,267
487
#1
According to the Washington Post, President Bush believes his reelection constitutes a "ratification" of his "approach toward Iraq."

Far from being "ratified" in the rest of the world – including the United Kingdom – Bush's "approach toward Iraq" has given rise to concerns about the current state of international law in general and whether the prohibitions against the use of force on which the United Nations Charter is founded are still respected by the United States.

Last summer, 40 members of Britain's Parliament asked UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to seek the opinion of the UN's International Court of Justice on the "legality" under the UN Charter of the Iraq invasion.

"We look to the court for an advisory opinion on this war, not only to address the casualties and damage done to the people and country of Iraq, but also to offer clear guidelines for the future about the legality of preemptive wars."

Iraqi Operation Freedom was neither justified to – nor sanctioned by – the United Nations Security Council, hence it constituted a flagrant violation of the UN Charter, applicable sections of which are quoted below.

Article 39: "The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security."

Article 41: "The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations."

Article 42: "Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations."

Article 46: "Plans for the application of armed force shall be made by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.

[The Military Staff Committee shall consist of the Chiefs of Staff of the permanent members of the Security Council or their representatives.… The Military Staff Committee shall be responsible under the Security Council for the strategic direction of any armed forces placed at the disposal of the Security Council.]"

In 2002, the United States provided no evidence to the Security Council that Iraq was a "threat to the peace." In fact, all evidence provided by Iraq and UN inspectors was to the contrary.

Hence, the Security Council didn't authorize any actions involving force against Iraq by member states. Nor were any plans even made for the application of force.

But none of that matters to Bush. The American electorate has "ratified" his approach to Iraq. His second inaugural address promises more applications of the Bush Doctrine to those characterized in it as "rogue states," namely, those who:

  • brutalize their own people and squander their national resources for the personal gain of the rulers;
  • display no regard for international law, threaten their neighbors, and callously violate international treaties to which they are party;
  • are determined to acquire weapons of mass destruction, along with other advanced military technology, to be used as threats or offensively to achieve the aggressive designs of these regimes;
  • sponsor terrorism around the globe; and
  • reject basic human values and hate the United States and everything for which it stands.
    According to the Bush Doctrine, "The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security.… To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.… The purpose of our actions will always be to eliminate a specific threat to the United States or our allies and friends."

So you soccer moms have "ratified" the application of the Bush Doctrine to Iraq – haven't you? How about applying it to other "outposts of tyranny" identified by Bush's new secretary of state?

Cuba? Burma? North Korea? Iran? Belarus? Zimbabwe?

Did you ratify that?
 

RageAgainst

Chaotic Neutral
7,540
685
257
#2
How about applying it to other "outposts of tyranny" identified by Bush's new secretary of state?
Cuba? Burma? North Korea? Iran? Belarus? Zimbabwe?
Bush fights tyranny now??? yea ok. They're allied with countries that directly violate human rights. Cuba is a rainbow full of joy compared to pakistan (the paki leader took power by force in 1999..) ..If you look just at the human rights and condition, it's obvious that Pakistan is worse. But they're still our ally.

Does democracy/tyranny/human rights/freedom really matter to Bush & the pentagon? I doubt it, since countries like Pakistan and Uzbekistan aren't on the list of so-called evil governments. Or are they just playing a game, telling you what they want you to think while shaping the world to their advantage? "hey we need cheap oil contracts, this country is full of oil AND its leader is a tyran. What an opportunity, invade them in the name of democracy, then the elected leaders will sell us cheap oil", or the opposite, "hey this country is ruled by a tyran but we need them to fight these other guys so let's just not talk about them in the newspapers and everything will be fine"
yes? no? do you get my point?
 

bigck3000

The Iron Lung
1,684
1
0
#3
this could be the weed binge talking but....was anyone else drawing uncanny similiarities between what qualifies a "Rouge State" and our own country's actions. I think it would be a BITCH to have to live in the U.S during a blockade or sanction but I think we deserve it. This may have been implied, but i'm too lethargic to go ALL THE WAY to the bottom of the page to RE-READ it...so...anyone else smell the growing tide of national and international discontent that will be coming to head soon? I sure do.


SOME ONE PLEASE COME LIBERATE US!!!
 

RageAgainst

Chaotic Neutral
7,540
685
257
#4
Yeah, agreed. Why is the defense budget so high in the US, for homeland security alone? Because we're being imperialist bitches to so many countries, that the world hate us. A country with such an imperialistic foreign policy needs a bad-ass military protection to survive. People remain "polite" to those who have the big guns when they let their dogs shit on their lawns.