Hezbollah 'proud of being US enemy'

reply to post by budski


No no no. They'd say, "I don't recall" or "That's a matter of national security".

I think the daily show put it best when they had clips where they said something like this:

"We can't talk about this until it goes to trial"

"We can't talk about this, there's an on going investigation"

"We can't talk about this while it's under trial"

"I don't recall"

[edit on 23-1-2008 by Sublime620]

reply to post by Sublime620


So the secretary general is the only person that needs to say it's illegal, to make it so, or do you think a consensus of UN members might carry more weight?

reply to post by noangels


It's unfortunate to say the least that ordinary americans have been tarred with the same brush as shrub (pun intended), not to mention the armed forces personnel who are only doing what they get paid for - take orders from CinC.

reply to post by BlueRaja

The Secretary-General of the United Nations is the head of the Secretariat, one of the principal organs of the United Nations. The Secretary-General acts as the de facto spokesperson and leader of the United Nations.

Source

Definition of de facto

1. in fact; in reality: Although his title was prime minister, he was de facto president of the country. Although the school was said to be open to all qualified students, it still practiced de facto segregation.
2. actually existing, esp. when without lawful authority (distinguished from de jure).
3. Australian. a person who lives in an intimate relationship with but is not married to a person of the opposite sex; lover.

Source

I don't think I need to say much else.

[edit on 23-1-2008 by Sublime620]

reply to post by noangels


Have any other nations other than maybe Iran, Venezuela, or Syria even suggested that Bush should be charged with war crimes? Sure there are people in numerous countries that might feel that way, including the US, but as a matter of national policy?

reply to post by BlueRaja


So it's OK for bush to follow the UN when he wants, but to ignore them when he doesn't like what they say?

Kind of like the NIE on Irans nuclear programme then.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by BlueRaja


Unfortunately... no. At least officially, no.

reply to post by budski


I had to take orders from Clinton too, not just Bush. The military only works if there is order and discipline. There can't be 500,000 commanders.

reply to post by Sublime620


So what if the next Secretary General says it's not illegal? Do you see why that's not the standard for adjudication?

reply to post by budski


There's a big difference between a UN Resolution and the opinion of one member of the UN. It's not the Secretary General's opinion that's important. It's the voting members of the UN, whose opinions are important. Where again I ask are the UN Resolutions against the US?

reply to post by BlueRaja


You asked if the UN Secretary means he speaks for the UN and I posted that it does with sources. What he says is literally fact from the UN's perspective.

If he said it was a legal war then UN would think the war is legal. No ramifications. I don't see why the UN would say it's legal because in plain site it's not.

Originally posted by BlueRaja
reply to post by budski

 

There's a big difference between a UN Resolution and the opinion of one member of the UN. It's not the Secretary General's opinion that's important. It's the voting members of the UN, whose opinions are important. Where again I ask are the UN Resolutions against the US?

Did you not read? What the Secretary General says is de facto. That means it's fact, as far as the UN is concerned.

If the Secretary General says its an illegal war, then it's an illegal war.

"Our point of view... this an illegal war"

The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal.

"I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal."

Important to note: It is not his point of view. It's de facto. It's the UN's point of view. Hence his using the word "our".

The UN chief had warned the US and its allies a week before the invasion in March 2003 that military action would violate the UN charter. But he has hitherto refrained from using the damning word "illegal".

They were warned in advance. Talk about service!!

Mr Annan issued a stern critique of the notion of pre-emptive self-defense, saying it would lead to a breakdown in international order. Mr Annan last night said that there should have been a second UN resolution specifically authorizing war against Iraq. Mr Blair and Mr Straw tried to secure this second resolution early in 2003 in the run-up to the war but were unable to convince a skeptical security council.

Mr Annan said the security council had warned Iraq in resolution 1441 there would be "consequences" if it did not comply with its demands. But he said it should have been up to the council to determine what those consequences were.

As you can see, it did go to a vote and the resolutionw not passed.

Luckily for us, the UN has always been more talk with less action.

[edit on 23-1-2008 by Sublime620]

reply to post by Sublime620


The secretary general is a spokesman. He doesn't make or set policy.

I don't have anywhere near this trouble explaining things to my 5 year old nephew.
Nor do I have to repeat the same things over and over.
He has quite a good attention span it seems - plus he eats his veg

blueraja - these arguments you put forth have been shown time and again to be patently false.

Continue trying to wriggle out of it all you like.

You have your facts wrong.

reply to post by budski


I have proven to him that what the Secretary General says is fact not opinion and that a vote was taken on the legality of the war and still nothing.

Like I said to Griff on another thread... I think it's the avatar. People just can't take me seriously with it or something.



[edit on 23-1-2008 by Sublime620]

reply to post by Sublime620


Did it occur to you that perhaps Mr. Annan didn't want to lose his kickbacks in the oil for food program? Lots of war critics were happy doing business with Saddam, and didn't want to lose their profits.

www.washingtonpost.com...

www.heritage.org...

www.opinionjournal.com...

I submit that Mr. Annan's motives might not have been strictly as a result of his being a unquestionable humanitarian.

reply to post by BlueRaja



As far as i am aware you are indeed right on this aspect alone.No other countrys have the guts to hold Pretzel choker,Cheeny,rummy,Bolton and the other dispicable individuals to account.I guess money talks and they dont want to be isolated from America

concerning the UN.Most countries oposed this war apart from a dozen or so.
www.cbc.ca...

As for the law on this war regarding the UN,this link explains a lot

www.worldpress.org...

Originally posted by danwild6
Good!!!!!

As an American I'm not crying over Hezbollah's "revelation". In fact I'm proud my nation is so hated by an organization led by people who would start a war with a neighboring superpower then hide behind women and children, when it came time to reap the whirlwind. As far as I am concerned this is like Nazi Germany, Myanmar(the regime), or North Korea declaring their pride in being an enemy of America. It just shows me that I'm ultimately on the right side...... if I ever doubted it.

It is American supremacists like you that have ruined the world. You will never travel anywhere. You will live in your box and consume the world's resources not caring about others.

reply to post by budski


So UN Resolutions are made by the Secretary General, or by the voting members? Can you answer that?

reply to post by Sublime620


It's the wriggle - like fishing bait trying to get off a hook, except in this case the bait just keeps saying "what hook? There's no Hook"

Personally I quite like your avatar - it reminds me not to take mainstream news too seriously until it's been verified as much as possible.

Apparently though, mine annoys some people.

blueraja - this is a dead issue, according to the UN the war is illegal under international law.
As well as this, none of the requirements for an attack were met.
No WMDs, no links to al'qaeda.
End of story.
stop wriggling, be a man and admit you're wrong.



[edit on 23/1/2008 by budski]