Annan says Iraq war was illegal

I went to university in Malibu. I also lived in Malibu for three years. The complete liberalness of Malibu is kind of a myth. Yes, the city council, movie stars, and other nuts live there and define it. But, average, middle-class people also live there. Pepperdine University smack-dab in the middle is bastion of conservativism. Heck, Ken Starr is now the dean of the law school. If John Edwards’s “Two Americas” is to exist, it is in Malibu. The ULTRA-RICH LIBERALS and the average middle class conservatives like me, just trying to make a living. I’d love to move back there someday and get a house up in one of the canyons.

Okay then just turn the evil liberals to pillars of salt while leaving the righteous alone. How’s that Pinesay? :wink:

What chutzpah! We have a corrupt head of the UN who looted the oil for food program along with his corrupt son in conjunction with an evil murderous dictator along with the French and Russian ambassadors while millions of Iraqi civilians died and we have to listen to him talk about what is and is not LEGAL!!! What the f***?

How dare the Secretary-General of the United Nations lecture the U.S. on what’s legal and not legal under the UN Charter. Who does he think he is anyway?

And your point is? … And you are trying to say? …

Annan can say whatever he wants.

America is still a sovern nation. The UN doesn’t have veto power over congressional law-making and presidential execuatory actions. It isn’t in the Constitution of The United States of America. When I pledge my alligence, it isn’t to world harmony and placating everyone and making the French happy. It is to America.

The UN at best is like OPEC. It is a table where nations can get together to combine resources to address world problems … if willing. It is not, in my opinion, a place where “international law” is imposed on others againts the will of the people of other sovern nations. I may disagree with France’s decisions, for example, but you’ll never hear me saying, “France violated international law.”

When resolutions were passed by the UN regarding Iraq, it was simply enough sovern nations coming together to support a “gang-up” on another sovern nation. When the UN seemed unlikely to support military action, the US, a sovern nation, with several other sovern nations, attacked Iraq, a sovern nation, without the vehicle of the UN.

There is no reason why the UN has to be used for all decisions on war. The UN is a voluntary organization, not a compulsatory.

Annan? Talking about legitimacy? Give me a fucking break. Bunch of pussyfooting, corrupt, money grubbing shysters, tinpot dictators and sleazeballs. :noway:

Role of Secretary General as defined in the UN Charter:

Article 97
The Secretariat shall be the chief administrative officer of the Organization.

Article 99
The Secretary-General may bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security.

Article 100
In the performance of their duties the Secretary-General and the staff shall not seek or receive instructions from any government or from any other authority external to the Organization.

[color=blue]The U.S. is a signatory to the UN Charter[/color]

Does he have the power to say what is legal/illegal under the charter of the UN or must that be decided by the participating nations/legal council?

[quote=“spook”]Role of Secretary General as defined in the UN Charter:

Article 97
The Secretariat shall be the chief administrative officer of the Organization.

Article 99
The Secretary-General may bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security.

Article 100
In the performance of their duties the Secretary-General and the staff shall not seek or receive instructions from any government or from any other authority external to the Organization.

[color=blue]The U.S. is a signatory to the UN Charter[/color][/quote]

Spook, you divert attention away from what the real issue is.

Things that are boring:

  1. Did Annan have a right to speak.
  2. What is Annan’s role.
  3. Does the UN have a charter.
  4. Did the US sign the charter.

Things that are more of interest to this thread:

  1. Are the American people subjects of the UN.
  2. Is US action bound by every vote of the UN.
  3. Is Annan credible in light of his alleged corruption.
  4. Does it really matter what Annan says.

There are more interesting subjects. No one is going to argue with you on what is written down on paper.

My opinion is that the UN is become more and more of two things:

  1. A way to squeeze money out of the US taxpayer.
  2. A way to put the US on a leash in both trade and foreign policy.
  3. A way to squeeze blood out of the US military for conflicts they deem as necessary.

The UN has a lot of parallels to the EU: Downright lazy to do anything coordinataed on their own without the help of the US. The EU wants its own military and super-economy to rival US might in the world, but at the end of the day, they are too druged with the benefits of America’s stabalizing effect, that they never get off their ass. The same with the UN. A bunch of blowhards with blue helmets. When money is needed for AIDS, who do they go to? When real military action is needed, who do they go to. You’d figure a hundred or more countries could get together to do great things in this world without the US, espcially the modern and rich European countries. But why not? Are we stopping them. I think not.

i am really impressed
you know the UN and Europe very well
thank god we have the us to save our souls

How Europe Became a 90 Pound Weakling

Why the UN has No Moral Standing

no connection with the tread
but interesting

Au contraire. I find it very relevant. I think the main issue here is how much longer the rest of the world can pretend that the UN is anything more than a disgusting shop of immoral and irrelevant talkers who are out to get the best deals they can for themselves and their countries and world security and prosperity be damned.

I think that many who benefit from the current system of Pax Americana have to start asking themselves whether they are morally obligated or even for their own naked self interests to start helping the US defend the peace and prosperity of the world. We have 70 percent plus in Taiwan who would not be willing to help the US in Iraq but would naturally expect the US to come to its aid if China attacked. We also have Koreans and Taiwanese and Europeans bitching about the US getting involved in so many countries and that the US should mind its own business. Yet, when a conflict emerges say in Bosnia, Kosovo, North Korea, we are demanded to come to the rescue since it is our job.

When will the rest of the world start actually doing something? I think that every citizen of every Western country benefits immensely from the US and its efforts. Not paying, not supporting and not helping are bad enough but then to actively snipe and oppose US efforts to bring stability is sheer spoiled brat nonsense. What gives? Do other nations need to start educating their uninformed citizens a bit better about the realities of the world and how much they benefit.

I actually had a conversation with a very well educated Taiwanese woman last night who was furious that the US was trying to sell her country an arms package. I asked her why and she said it was too expensive and that the US was responsible for defending Taiwan under the Taiwan Relations Act so there was no reason for them to pay for weapons to defend themselves! Incredible! But I think that this attitude is widespread. The US is so eaily taken for granted. Sickening but no one can take advantage of you without your permission so I think that we need to start putting our foot down a lot harder about these things or allow whatever country in question is involved to start taking the responsibility for their decisions.

Here is what Mr Annan said and its context:

[quote]BBC: “So you don’t think there was legal authority for the war.”

Mr Annan: “I have made it clear, I have stated clearly, that it was not in conformity with the UN Charter.”

BBC: “It was illegal.”

Mr Annan: “Yes, if you wish.”

BBC: “It was illegal.”

Mr Annan: “Yes, I’ve indicated that it was not in conformity with the UN Charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal.”

The actual word was wrested from him as the final thing he said. He probably did not intend to say it, but found that he could not avoid it.
[/quote] … 661976.stm

Right. The left bent over backwards BBC just happened to ask the question of Annan and he could not help but answer the question rather than stonewall (like he is regarding the investigation into the Oil for Food program)? I mean he could have just repeated that “we have moved on from this and wish the Iraqis every success.” But what does he say about the Oil for Food program and the corruption involving his No. 2 and his own son? Does he admit that it was illegal and a violation of international law too or hasn’t it come to that? I suppose that CBS and Dan Rather just happened to ask the right questions to get the right answers regarding George Bush and like the BBC, their past “leanings” mean nothing because they are committed to being “objective.” Ah, right? I see now.

The UN is crap and KA is a gutless piece of crap too. Neither the UN nor he have any moral ground on which to stand and accuse the US of anything. Yet another example of the UN’s gutless nature:

[quote]Bullying Taiwan…

Chen Shui-bian appealed for the 12th time in as many years for Taiwan’s membership in the UN. … Once again the bid failed, as China mobilized 93 countries to speak against Taiwan’s proposal. Yet China was not fully content with its diplomatic victory. It then requested that Chen’s subsequent address to journalists via video-link from Taipei take place not inside the UN building (where it was originally scheduled), but at a hotel across the street. The Chinese request was made to Kofi Annan, without the consent of the head of the UN Correspondents Association (UNCA), Tony Jenkins. Jenkins later criticized Annan’s decision to bar Chen from speaking at the UNCA, equating it with censorship.

It was curious that Chen should be singled out in not being allowed to speak at the UNCA. After all, the UNCA has traditionally been a “free speech zone,” Jenkins pointed out to Annan, noting that the UNCA has in the past permitted a wide range of individuals and groups to speak on its premises, including a number of groups of dubious repute, such as the IRA, the Taliban, and the Iranian People’s Mujahadeen.[/quote]

Friggin’ joke, the UN and KA.

And look at the other UN scores:

Libya: UN: 0 and US: 1
Getting Syria to pull troops out of Lebanon: UN 0 and the US: 1 (they are moving as we speak from the environs of Beirut BECAUSE of US pressure.

Sudan: UN: 0 and still dithering US: 1 1/2 (ended the one in the South, pressure on the one in the west).

Why do so many people put so much faith in such a worthless and corrupt organization? I worked at this place. I know how it works. It is a joke full of spoiled third world pampered babies whose main concern is where to get a manicure and I am talking about the men.

Now, we have Jacques Chirac and Brazil pulling this stunt with an international tax to pay for poverty reduction. They know it won’t work just like Kyoto but they keep raising these things to win public-relations victories against the US and their sole interest is to lower US competitivity to the rates of France. Fuck France and I mean that in every sense of the word. One day oh one day there will be another crisis where France needs us and I say this time we sell the weapons to the invaders, arrange loans for their purchase of oil, terrorist weapons, etc and then stymie the French in the UN when they come crawling of their little holes like the bitches they are to beg for mercy. (Sorry, just imagining it sends a frisson of excitement through my bones)!

Kofi Annan, is himself a symbol of all that is wrong with the UN. A multibillion dollar oil-for-food fraud, replete with kickbacks (perhaps involving a company that his own son worked for), grew unchecked on his watch, as a sordid array of Baathist killers, international hustlers and even terrorists milked the national petroleum treasure of Iraq while its own people went hungry. In response, Mr. Annan stonewalls, counting on exemption from the New York press on grounds of his unimpeachable liberal credentials. Meanwhile, he prefers to denigrate the toppling of Saddam Hussein as “illegal,” but neither advocates reinstitution of a “legal” Saddam nor offers any concrete help to Iraqis crafting consensual society. Like the UN membership itself, he enjoys the freedom, affluence and security of a New York, but never stops to ask why that is so or how it might be extended to others less fortunate.

Fred, TM, stop hiding behind the UN wall. The US cares only about one thing the US.

Neither you nor your pathetic excuse of a leader would ever abide by any organisational rules - even if that organisation had a whiter than white reputation - if it meant any detriment to the US.


Nice try but the world’s economic growth and stability has been predicated on which nation in the past 60 years? Hmmm? Which one?

Now, we are the only ones to have gotten off our asses to do something about Bosnia, Kosovo, Croatia, Slovenia, Serbia. Ask around in those nations and who gets the praise? Ask around the Baltics and Eastern Europe and who gets the praise. Ask the 3 million refugees who have returned to Afghanistan because the US did something. Ask the 1.5 million Iraqis who have returned to their country despite the steady drumbeat of bad news from the liberal press and who was responsible there? THE US, the US, the US.

The UN has done what exactly? Name ONE conflict that the UN has stopped. Name ONE nation that the UN has saved from invasion or where it has reversed that invasion. Name ONE humanitarian conflict or crisis where the UN has been instrumental. NAME ONE. or alternatively name one other country who has been instrumental in any of the above as well.

And you talk to me about how the US only cares about itself. Strange how many benefits the rest of the world gets from such a selfish policy but what exactly has anyone else done for the world lately? Hmmm? Love to hear about that.

Fred, as usual you manage to miss the point, even if the UN had stopped wars etc etc, the US would still not abide by any of its rulings, as the US will always do what the US wants.

As for the US’s intervention in issues, as both you and tigerman are always saying, the US only does it for it’s own good reason or benefit. As such, then the US is always getting more out of something than it puts in, especially in the long term. The US does not do anything to help others where it cannot help itself.